‘ ^ The  Problem  df^ 


, . Tr  ■ ff'  ■■.  * 

, ';  <1. .i>"-  .'#? 

y '■•  - s' 


■'ll 


% 


:i' 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/problemofobelisk00enge_0 


Fig.  I.— obelisks  OF  TUTHMOSIS  I (left)  AND  HATSHEPSOWET  (right)  AT  KARNAK. 
(The  nearer  obelisk  leans  to  the  left  ou'ing  to  soil- subsidence.) 


[Frontispiece. 


THE  PROBLEM 
OF  THE  OBELISKS 

FROM  A STUDY  OF  THE  UNFINISHED 
OBELISK  AT  ASWAN 


BY 

R.  ENGELBACH 

Assoc.  C.  & G.  Inst. 

Chief  Inspector  of  Antiquities^  Upper  Egypt  (Author  (^Riqqeh,  1915  ; 
The  Aswan  Obelisk,  1922  ; Harageh,  1923,  etc.) 


ILLUSTRATED 


NEW 


YORK 


GEORGE  H.  DORAN  COMPANY 


1923 


Printed  in  Great  Britain  by  Hazell,  Watson  & Viney,  Ld., 
London  and  Aylesbury, 


,•  j p p P Y 

p.?c;T'TUT*i 


PREFACE 


t I "MnS  book  has  been  written,  not  only  to 

I give  the  general  reader  the  results  of  the 
latest  researches  on  the  ages-old  problem 
as  to  how  the  obelisks  were  extracted  and  erected 
in  ancient  times,  but  also  to  furnish  visitors  to 
Aswan  with  a full  description  of  the  huge 
unfinished  obelisk  lying  in  the  quarries  a short 
distance  from  the  Cataract  Hotel,  which  has 
thrown  a great  deal  of  light  on  the  ancient 
methods.  I have  included  in  it,  for  comparison, 
brief  accounts  of  the  removal  and  re-erection  in 
modern  times  of  the  Vatican,  Paris,  London  and 
New  York  obelisks.  No  detailed  account  of  the 
Aswan  Obelisk  has  yet  appeared  in  any  guide- 
book. 

The  results  of  my  clearance  of  the  obelisk 
quarry  in  1921  and  1922  have  already  been 
published  by  the  Antiquities  Department,  under 
the  title  of  The  Aswan  Obelisk,  with  some  remarks 
on  the  Ancient  Engineering,  of  which  this  is 
practically  a popular  edition.  It  has  been 
entirely  re-written  and  re-arranged,  omitting 
the  rather  elaborate  calculations  on  stresses 
and  leverages  which  are  given  at  length  in  the 
official  volume,  but  giving  in  far  greater  detail 

7 


8 


PREFACE 


the  results  of  my  experiments  with  the  scale 
model  shown  in  figs.  27-33,  which  Mr.  Donaldson, 
of  the  Egyptian  State  Railways,  kindly  made  to 
my  design.  No  photographs  of  this  model 
have  been  hitherto  published. 

Although  more  than  a year  has  elapsed  since 
sending  the  manuscript  of  The  Aswan  Obelisk 
to  press,  I have  not  had  to  modify  my  views  on 
the  ancient  methods  in  any  point  of  importance  ; 
further  study  of  the  quarry  has,  however, 
induced  me  to  omit  the  alternative  suggestion 
on  the  manner  in  which  the  obelisk  was  rolled 
clear  of  the  quarry  (page  53)  and  to  assert, 
with  some  confidence,  that  sleds  were  an  essential 
in  the  transport  of  all  large  obelisks. 

To  the  reader  who  may  charge  me  with 
expending  so  much  space  on  such  a restricted 
subject  as  that  of  the  making  of  obelisks,  I 
would  recall  the  deathbed  answer  of  the  old 
professor  to  his  friends,  who  had  asked  him  if 
he  did  not  think  he  had  wasted  his  life  by  devot- 
ing it  exclusively  to  the  study  of  Greek  preposi- 
tions. He  replied : ‘‘It  is  true ; I should 

have  confined  myself  to  those  governing  the 
Dative  ! Like  him,  I feel  that  I have  unduly 
digressed  in  Chapter  VIII,  when  so  much  remains 
to  be  discussed  on  the  mechanical  side. 

In  explaining  the  various  processes,  I have 
tried  to  indicate  clearly  where  fact  ends  and 
deduction  begins,  and  frankly  to  admit — as  in 


PREFACE 


9 

the  case  of  the  details  of  the  transport  barges — 
where  there  is  not  sufficient  evidence  on  which 
to  speculate,  or  when  any  stage  of  the  mechanical 
history  of  the  obelisk  is  not  clear  to  me. 

There  is  an  increasing  demand,  among  the 
10,000  visitors  who  come  to  Egypt  each  year, 
for  facts  about  the  arts,  crafts,  engineering  and 
practical  life  of  the  Egyptians  ; in  other  words, 
for  a compact  account  of  what  is  known  on  a 
subject  that  interests  them;  and  there  is  a 
corresponding  and  natural  dislike  to  descriptions 
of  the  never-ending  scenes  of  gods  and  kings, 
which,  after  all,  convey  very  little  information 
even  to  the  archaeologist.  There  is  a surprising 
difference  between  the  taste  of  the  average 
visitor  now  and  that  of  fifteen  years  ago.  Then 
the  chief  point  of  remark  about  the  tourist  was 
his  Baedeker  and  his  boredom  ; now  Breasted's 
Ancient  Records  and  the  latest  archaeological 
works  are  constantly  seen  in  his  hands,  in  addi- 
tion to  that  excellent  guide-book. 

In  the  following  pages  I have  been  occasionally 
guilty  of  levity.  My  defence  is  that  it  is  as  a 
sort  of  protest  against  a habit — so  dear  to  the 
dilettanti  in  Egyptian  lore — of  never  speaking 
of  anything  Ancient  Egyptian  except  in 
sepulchral  tones  and  with  bated  breath,  lest 
a curse  fall  upon  them  ! As  a matter  of  fact  the 
Egyptian,  apart  from  his  religion,  was  essentially 
a practical  man,  and  by  no  means  opposed  to 


10 


PREFACE 


a little  levity ; one  has  only  to  read  the  texi 
accompanying  some  of  the  banqueting  scenes 
in  the  tombs — such  as  that  of  Paheri  at  El-Kab 
— to  be  convinced  of  this.  Further,  this  book 
deals  with  work,  and  lacks  the  romance 
popularly  associated  with  the  gods,  graves  and 
ghosts  of  ancient  Egypt.  I have  only  dipped 
into  the  graveyard  for  purely  secular  information, 
such  as  the  careers  of  the  ancient  architects. 
My  feeble  attempts  to  brighten  up  a rather 
‘'tough''  subject  may  therefore  be  pardoned, 
if  not  approved. 

On  the  subject  of  the  transcription  of  Egyptian 
names,  a word  of  explanation  may  not  be  out 
of  place.  I am  constantly  asked,  “ Which 
should  it  be  : Tuthmosis,  Thothmes,  Tahutimes, 
Dhutmose,  Tuthmose  or  Thutmosis  ? " or  : “ Was 
the  Queen  called  Hatshepsut,  Hatshepsowet, 
Hatshepsuit,  Hatshopsitou  or  Hatasoo  ? " The 
reason  for  these  variants  is  that  the  Egyptians 
wrote  their  names  in  consonants  only,  except — 
apparently  under  protest — when  they  indicated 
the  presence  of  an  initial  vowel  or  final  i.  The 
system  adopted  here  is  practically  that  given 
by  Dr.  Alan  Gardiner  in  his  Topographical 
Catalogue  of  the  Private  Tombs  of  Thebes,  and  that 
is  an  attempt  to  reconstruct  the  names,  following 
the  latest  researches  in  the  ancient  vocalisation. 
In  the  case  of  kings,  where  the  Greek  or 
Manethonian  form  is  well  known  and  appears 


PREFACE 


II 


to  be  close  to  the  probable  articulation,  it  has 
been  retained.  Thus  we  say  Hatshepsowet, 
Dhuthotpe  and  Sennemut,  but  Tuthmosis,  Ame- 
nophis  and  Ramesses.  This  system  is  being 
adopted  by  the  Survey  of  Egypt  for  their  future 
publications.  The  variants  given  in  Appendix  II 
will,  I hope,  clear  up  all  the  reader's  difficulties 
in  this  respect. 

In  collecting  the  history  of  the  obelisks  and 
their  architects  for  Chapter  VIII,  I am  greatly 
indebted  to  Prof.  J.  H.  Breasted's  invaluable 
Ancient  Records,  which  give,  in  a handy  form, 
translations  of  every  historical  document  in 
Egypt.  Though  in  most  cases  the  translations 
given  in  that  chapter  are  based  on  Prof.  Breasted's 
work,  I have  occasionally  sacrificed  his  strictly 
literal  translation  in  order  to  give  the  reader  a 
freer  rendering. 

My  thanks  are  due  to  the  Antiquities  Depart- 
ment of  the  Egyptian  Government  for  permission 
to  reproduce  from  The  Aswan  Obelisk  figures  5-11, 
13-20,  22,  25,  26,  34-36  ; to  Messrs.  Macmillan 
and  Co.  for  the  loan  of  the  blocks  for  figures  21, 
23  and  24 ; and  to  Messrs.  Harmsworths,  Ltd., 
for  permission  to  reproduce  the  photographs  on 
figures  I,  2 and  38-40  from  my  article  on  obelisks 
in  Wonders  of  the  Past.  Photos  3,  4 and  18 
were  taken  by  Mr.  A.  M.  MacGillivray,  of  Aswan ; 
I,  2,  38-40  by  Gaddis  and  Seif,  Luxor ; the 
remainder  are  mine. 


’,-)•,'<•  ^<  friA  ' 

W'' 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 
R.  Engelbach 

ERRATA 

Page  19,  last  line,  for  “ Ramose  " read  “ Seti  I." 

,,  48,  lines  13,  20,  and  22,  for  *‘3*15  inches*' 

“ -315  inch.*' 

,,  60,  line  5,  for  “ rollers  ’*  read  “ baulks." 

,,  70,  lines  15  and  17,  for  read 


read 


i? 


..TIT  Tv  ITVJVeVv 
V -:T  -v; 


..-  ,.-3aT  '■  3»Q.T~3.^  7,li  ,3, 

TIviTIIi  C'TI^  '•  'irT  ,TT  IL/TIT  ./IT  .-^  C lilTTil  ,03 

''  -TTTi  =i:' 

31:1.: I't;;,  ■ ' r3;3  ' etio.itt  t-;i  .,?  ou.'.: 

-tT-v  -«'3y  i 7^-;.--  Tc.il  -VC  .OCIC  7>  SCI.:.i,i  .73 


io.:c: 


33  c 


CONTENTS 


Page 

Preface 7 

CHAPTER  I 

Obelisks  and  Quarries  ....  17 

CHAPTER  II 

Description  of  the  Aswan  Obelisk  . . 25 

CHAPTER  III, 

Setting  Out  an  Obelisk  ....  32 

CHAPTER  IV 

Extraction  of  an  Obelisk  ...  41 

CHAPTER  V 

Transport  of  an  Obelisk  ....  52 

CHAPTER  VI 

Erection  of  Obelisks 66 

CHAPTER  VII 

Some  Ancient  Records  ....  85 

CHAPTER  VIII 

A History  of  Certain  Obelisks  and  Their 
Architects  . 


13 


92 


14 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  IX 

Removals  of  Obelisks  in  Modern  Times  . 

APPENDIX  I 

Dates  of  Egyptian  Kings  Mentioned  in 
THE  Volume 

APPENDIX  II 

Vocalisations  of  Egyptian  Words 
Index  


Page 

II4 

123 

125 

128 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 


No.  of 


Fig. 

Page 

I. 

Obelisks  of  Tuthmosis  I (left)  and  Hatshep- 

sowet  (right)  at  Karnak  . {Frontispiece) 

2. 

Obelisk  of  Senusret  I at  Mataria,  near  Cairo  . 

18 

3- 

Aswan  Obelisk  from  the  east 

26 

4- 

Aswan  Obelisk  from  the  west 

26 

5- 

Hammer-dressing  on  pyramidion  of  Aswan 

Obelisk  ....... 

28 

6. 

Outline  of  scheme  for  reducing  size  of  Aswan 

Obelisk  ....... 

28 

7- 

Plan  and  sections  of  Aswan  Obelisk  to  a scale 

of  1/200  ....... 

38 

8. 

Wedge  and  chisel  marks  near  Aswan  Obelisk 

42 

9. 

Rough  chisel-dressing  on  unfinished  sarcophagi 

known  as  “ El-Hammammat/’  near  Aswan 

42 

10. 

Black  granite  hammer  from  Gizeh 

42 

II. 

Interior  of  separating-trench  round  Aswan 

Obelisk  ....... 

42 

12. 

View  of  trench  round  Aswan  Obelisk  when 

standing  within  it  . 

42 

13- 

Measuring-lines  on  upper  quarry-face,  Aswan 

Obelisk  ....... 

44 

14-17. 

Traces  of  inscriptions  on  upper  quarry-face  . 

46 

18. 

View  of  Aswan  Obelisk  from  the  north  . 

50 

19. 

Bed  from  which  a small  monument,  probably 

an  obelisk,  has  been  removed  . 

50 

20. 

Obelisk  of  Hatshepsowet,  mounted  on  a sled. 

from  her  sculptures  at  Der  El-Bahari . 

57 

21. 

Transport  of  the  statue  of  Dhuthotpe,  from 

his  tomb  at  El-Bersheh  .... 

59 

22. 

Sketch-plan  of  the  neighbourhood  of  obelisk 

quarry,  Aswan  ..... 

60 

23- 

Cargo-boat,  New  Kingdom  .... 

61 

24. 

Boat  of  Queen  Hatshepsowet,  from  the  Punt 

reliefs  at  Der  El-Bahari  .... 

62 

25- 

Position  of  base  of  Hatshepsowet’s  obelisk  on 

its  pedestal  ...... 

68 

26. 

Gigantic  embankment  for  transporting  stone. 

Aswan  ....... 

70 

15 


i6 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 


No.  of 
Fig. 

27. 

28. 

29. 
30- 

31* 

32. 

33. 

34- 

35- 

36. 

37- 


38. 


39- 


40. 


41. 

42. 

43- 

44- 


Page 

Sectional  model  of  an  embankment,  to  show 
method  of  erecting  obelisks  ...  70 

Obelisk  at  the  top  of  the  slope,  overhanging 

the  sand-funnel  .....  70 

Sled  half  removed  .....  70 

Obelisk  engaging  in  the  sand  ; all  the  lashings 

are  released  ......  72 

Obelisk  half-way  down  the  funnel  . . 72 

Obelisk  at  rest  at  the  bottom  of  the  funnel, 
its  edge  engaging  in  the  notch  of  the  pedestal  72 

Obelisk  after  it  has  been  pulled  upright  . 72 

Choisy’s  suggestion  for  raising  obehsks  . 77 

Choisy’s  theory  on  the  erection  of  obelisks  . 78 

tf  tt  tt  $»  f»  78 

Statue  of  Sennemut,  architect  of  Hatshepso- 
wet’s  obelisks,  holding  her  daughter  Nefrurd, 
to  whom  he  was  tutor  ....  100 

King  Tuthmdsis  III  presents  obelisks,  flag- 
staves  and  booty  from  Palestine  to  the  god 
Amen-Re,  Karnak  .....  io8 

Obelisk  of  Harnesses  II,  Temple  of  Luxor. 

Its  fellow  is  now  at  the  Place  de  la  Concorde, 

Paris  .....  . . 112 

Contemporary  sculpture  of  Pylon  of  Ramesses 
II  in  the  Temple  of  Luxor,  showing  obelisks, 
flagstaves  and  colossi  . . . . 112 

Model  showing  how  the  Paris  Obelisk  was 
lowered  and  erected  . . . . 116 

Model  to  show  how  the  lowering  and  the  raising 

of  the  New  York  Obelisk  were  performed.  116 
Lowering  of  the  New  York  Obehsk.  Towers 

and  trunnions  about  to  be  removed  . 118 

Lowering  of  the  New  York  Obelisk.  Removing 
the  wooden  baulks  from  each  end  alternately  1 1 8 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE 
OBELISKS 


CHAPTER  I 

OBELISKS  AND  QUARRIES 

OBELISKS  have  always  held  a great 
attraction  for  visitors  to  Egypt  through- 
out the  ages.  From  the  time  of  Assur- 
banipal  II  onwards  nearly  every  foreign  con- 
troller of  Egypt  has  removed  one  or  more  as  a 
souvenir.  Though  there  must  have  been  several 
score  of  large  obelisks  in  the  country — Karnak 
alone  had  at  least  thirteen — there  now  remain 
but  five  standing.  Earthquakes,  soil-subsidence 
and  the  foreigner  have  indeed  taken  a toll. 

Though  records  of  obelisks  extend  back  into 
the  Old  Kingdom,  and  fragments  of  them  have 
been  discovered,  the  earliest  complete  example 
is  that  of  King  Senusret  I of  the  Xllth  dynasty 
at  El-Mataria,  near  Cairo,  shown  in  fig.  2.  The 
others  are  those  of  Tuthmosis  I,  Queen  Hatshep- 
sowet  and  Seti  II  at  Karnak,  and  the  obelisk 
in  front  of  Luxor  temple  dating  to  the  reign  of 
Ramesses  II.  Of  these,  that  of  Tuthmosis  I 
(frontispiece)  is  in  a rather  dangerous  condition 
owing  to  the  settling  of  its  pedestal,  and  that  of 
2 17 


i8  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 


Seti  II  is  only  a miniature  obelisk  of  gritstone, 
of  which  there  must  have  been  hundreds  in  the 
country.  Against  this  Rome  has  nine  over 
20  feet  high,  while  Constantinople,  Paris,  London 
and  New  York  all  have  one  large  obelisk,  not  to 
mention  several  small  ones  in  museums,  private 
collections  and  gardens. 

In  ancient  times  there  must  have  been  a 
great  number  of  large  obelisks  in  Egypt.  Seti  I 
tells  us  that  he  filled  Heliopolis  with  obelisks,'’ 
and  Harnesses  II  is  known  to  have  had  fourteen 
in  Tanis  alone,  though  whether  he  erected  them 
or  merely  usurped  them,  according  to  his  habit, 
is  uncertain.  Besides  the  temples  of  the  great 
centres  such  as  Karnak  and  Luxor,  Heliopolis 
and  Tanis,  many  of  the  temples  in  other  places 
must  have  had  them.  We  have  actual  records  of 
obelisks  at  Philse,  Elephantine,  Soleb  (in  Nubia), 
the  mortuary  temple  of  Amenophis  III  behind 
the  Colossi  of  Thebes,  and  elsewhere.  The 
total  number  of  obelisks  exceeding  30  feet  in 
length  must  have  been  well  over  fifty. 

The  origin  and  religious  significance  of  the 
obelisk  are  somewhat  obscure.  In  the  royal 
sanctuaries  of  the  fifth  dynasty  kings  on  the 
margin  of  the  western  desert  at  Abusir,  not  far 
from  the  Pyramids  of  Gizeh,  the  obelisk  took 
the  place  of  the  holy  of  holies  of  the  later 
temples.  Recent  excavations  have  shown  that 
these  obelisks  were  very  different  from  those 
now  familiar  to  visitors,  as  the  length  of  the 
base  was  fully  one-third  that  of  the  shaft, 
which  was  of  masonry  and  merely  served  the 


Fig.  2.- 


-OBELISK  OF  SENUSRET  I AT  MATARIA, 
(Pages  17,  30  and  iii.) 


NEAR  CAIRO. 


s'*' 


-< 


vi 


i 


v'  '■" 


•m 

i'-'.' 


( 


li 


l 


OBELISKS  AND  QUARRIES  19 

purpose  of  elevating  the  sacred  pyramid  or 
benben{t),  as  the  Egyptians  called  it — the  real 
emblem  of  the  sun.  The  obelisks  of  Upper 
Egypt,  on  the  other  hand,  had  no  very  definite 
connection  with  sun-worship,  their  only  function 
being  an  additional  decoration  to  the  pylons, 
though  it  is  known  that  they  were  greatly 
venerated  and  offerings  were  made  to  them. 
They  were  erected  in  pairs,  and  when  Tuthmosis 
III  (p.  109)  put  up  a single  one  at  Karnak,  he 
says  that  it  was  the  first  time  that  this  had  been 
done.  Until  we  know  how  early  obelisks  were 
placed  before  the  pylons  of  Upper  Egypt,  it  is 
rather  difficult  to  say  whether  they  were  de- 
veloped from  the  fifth  dynasty  sun-obelisks  or 
independently,  particularly  when  one  realises 
that,  if  a high,  thin  stone  monument  is  desired, 
the  obelisk  is  the  only  practical  form  which 
is  pleasing  to  the  eye  and  convenient  for  inscrib- 
ing. In  any  case,  the  subject  is  really  outside 
the  scope  of  this  book,  which  deals  rather  with 
the  mechanical  side  of  obelisk-lore.  A discussion 
of  the  obelisk  as  a sun-emblem  pure  and  simple 
is  given  in  Prof.  J.  H.  Breasted's  Development 
of  Religion  and  Thought  in  Ancient  Egypt 
(Hodder  and  Stoughton)  on  pages  ii,  15  and  71. 

The  artistic  taste  of  the  ancient  Egyptian 
differed  considerably  from  ours  and,  to  our 
minds,  he  was  in  the  habit  of  decorating  objects 
which  do  not  need  any  decoration  whatever. 
He  had — like  the  modern  Egyptian — a perfect 
mania  for  painting  and  gilding  everything.  In 
the  tomb  of  Ramose  at  Thebes  (No.  55)  he  has 


20  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 


painted  in  gaudy  colours  the  most  wonderfully 
detailed  reliefs,  and  we  know  for  certain  that  he 
overlaid  the  huge  fir-trees,  which  formed  the 
pylon  flagstaves,  with  bands  and  tips  of  electrum 
or  copper.  Obelisks  did  not  escape  this  craze, 
and  as  far  back  as  our  records  go  they  were 
capped  with  electrum,  copper  or  gold.  The 
Arab  historian  'Abd  El-Latif,  writing  as  late  as 
1201  A.D.,  states  that  the  two  Heliopolis  (Mataria) 
obelisks  still  retained  their  copper  caps,  and  that 
around  them  were  other  obelisks  large  and  small, 
too  numerous  to  mention  (see  page  in).  Now 
only  one  remains. 

The  unfinished  obelisk  of  Aswan,  though  its 
existence  has  been  known  for  centuries,  was 
never  cleared  until  the  end  of  the  winter  of  1922, 
when  my  Department  granted  me  L.E.  75  to  do 
so.  In  this  work  I was  assisted  by  Mahmud  Eff. 
Mohammad  and  Mustafa  Eff.  Hasan  of  the 
Antiquities  Department,  who  supervised  the 
workmen. 

Before  the  clearance,  all  the  visitor  could  see 
of  the  obelisk  was  the  top  surface  of  the  pyra- 
midion  and  about  20  yards  of  shaft,  which  sloped 
down  into  a vast  heap  of  sand,  chips  and  granite 
boulders.  It  has  now  become  one  of  the  most 
visited  sights  in  Aswan,  since  nothing  of  its  kind 
is  to  be  seen  elsewhere. 

Most  persons,  having  seen  the  temples  and 
tombs  of  Egypt,  become  more  or  less  blase  to 
them.  This  is  largely  due  to  the  fact  that  no- 
one — ^least  of  all  the  dragomans — brings  home 
to  them  the  enormous  difficulties  the  Egyptians 


OBELISKS  AND  QUARRIES  21 

overcame.  They  dismiss  them  as  beyond  their 
understanding,  and  many  closer  students  of  the 
monuments  than  the  average  visitor  have  boldly 
affirmed  that  the  Egyptians  knew  engines  and 
forces  of  nature  of  which  we  are  to-day  ignorant. 
This  is  quite  a wrong  idea  ; it  is,  as  a matter  of 
fact,  far  easier  to  explain  every  step  in  the 
mechanics  of  a large  obehsk  to  the  non-technical 
reader  than  those  of  an  iron  bridge.  Though 
modern  research  robs  the  Egyptians  of  the 
magical  powers  attributed  to  them,  it  makes 
them  more  admirable  in  the  eyes  of  the  practical 
man,  as  it  shows  that  they  could  do,  with  the 
most  primitive  tools,  feats  of  engineering  which 
we,  with  some  3,000  years  of  mechanical  progress 
behind  us,  are  barely  able  to  copy. 

A study  of  the  Aswan  Obelisk  enables  the 
visitor  to  look  with  different  eyes  on  the  finished 
monuments,  and  to  realise,  not  only  the  immense 
labour  expended  in  transporting  the  giant 
blocks  and  the  years  of  tedious  extraction  of 
stone  in  the  quarries,  but  the  heartbreaking 
failures  which  must  sometimes  have  driven  the 
old  engineers  to  the  verge  of  despair  before  a 
perfect  monument  could  be  presented  by  the 
king  to  his  god.  Nowadays,  if  anything  gets 
out  of  position,  a jack,  a winch  or  a crane  is 
called  for,  and  the  trouble  is  soon  put  right ; 
in  ancient  times  a colossus  or  an  obelisk  which 
came  down  badly  on  to  its  pedestal  was  some- 
thing in  the  nature  of  a tragedy.  A perfect 
monument  teaches  us  little  of  their  engineering  ; 
an  imperfect  or  unfinished  piece  of  work  may 


22  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 


teach  us  much.  Thus  the  obelisk  of  Hatshepso- 
wet  at  Karnak,  standing  askew  on  its  pedestal, 
which  must  have  been  a perpetual  sore  point  to 
Sennemut,  its  engineer,  is  useful  to  us,  as  it 
enables  us  at  once  to  rule  out  the  levering-up 
theories  put  forward  by  Gorringe  and  others 
who  have  written  on  the  subject  (page  67). 

The  Aswan  Obelisk  is  a piece  of  work  that 
failed,  not  through  any  fault  of  the  workers,  but 
owing  to  an  unexpected  fissure  in  the  rock.  It 
must  have  been  galling  beyond  words  to  the 
Egyptians  to  abandon  it  after  all  the  time  and 
trouble  they  had  expended,  but  to-day  we  are 
grateful  for  their  failure,  as  it  teaches  us  more 
about  their  methods  than  any  other  monument 
in  Egypt. 

The  great  quarries  of  Aswan  and  Silsileh  are 
quite  untouched  as  regards  excavation,  which 
is  one  of  the  reasons  why  our  knowledge  on  the 
extraction  of  stone  is  so  very  unsatisfactory. 
In  spite  of  this  there  is  quite  a considerable 
literature  on  the  subject,  mostly  done  either  by 
engineers  (on  a brief  visit)  with  no  knowledge  of 
archseology  to  enable  them  to  control  their 
assertions,  or  by  archaeologists  to  whom  engineer- 
ing is  a sealed  mystery.  While  the  publication 
of  a new  grammatical  form  or  historical  point 
will  evoke  a perfect  frenzy  of  contradiction 
in  the  little  world  of  Egyptology,  the  most  absurd 
statements  on  a mechanical  problem  will  be  left 
unquestioned,  and,  what  is  worse,  accepted. 
In  most  branches  of  modern  archaeology  the 
alleged  savant  must  work  in  conjunction  with 


OBELISKS  AND  QUARRIES  23 

the  specialist,  and  the  specialist  needed  for  the 
subject  under  discussion  is  the  foreman  quarry- 
man.  This  was  brought  home  to  me  with  great 
force  when  I was  at  work  on  the  obelisk,  and  I 
shall  never  forget  the  ease  nor  the  contempt 
with  which  an  old  Italian  quarryman  disproved 
some  of  my  then  most  cherished  theories.  His 
range  of  knowledge  may  have  been  limited,  but 
it  was  painfully  accurate. 

A walk  round  the  quarries  between  the  railway 
and  the  Reservoir  road  at  Aswan  well  repays  the 
trouble.  Here  we  may  see  gigantic  embank- 
ments, some  nearly  half  a mile  in  length,  on  which 
the  great  blocks  were  transported  from  the  high 
desert  down  to  the  Nile ; we  can  see  half- 
finished  sarcophagi  (fig.  9,  page  42)  and  statues, 
abandoned  no  one  knows  why,  in  various  stages 
of  completion ; we  can  see  inscriptions,  some 
readable  and  some  not,  painted  or  cut  on  the 
boulders  by  the  ancient  engineers,  and  every- 
where we  may  see  the  marks  of  their  wedges, 
some  showing  where  a block  has  been  removed, 
others  where  the  wedge  has  failed  to  act,  or  has 
split  the  rock  in  the  wrong  direction.  The  site 
clamours  for  excavation,  which  might  well  reveal 
chippings  from  the  chisels  used  in  cutting  the 
granite,  and  thus  settle,  once  and  for  all,  whether 
they  were  of  highly  tempered  copper  or  not  ; 
another  abandoned  monument  might  give  us 
conclusive  information  as  to  the  methods  by 
which  they  were  detached  from  below,  and  how 
it  was  intended  to  roll  them  out  from  their  beds. 
Excavation  might  well  furnish  us  with  ancient 


24  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

levers  and  rollers — or  traces  of  them — which  are 
hardly  known  at  present,  and  then  only  of  small 
size.  A big  quarry  has  never  been  cleared, 
and  we  cannot  believe  that  the  small  area 
excavated  round  the  obelisk  has  revealed  all 
the  secrets.  The  explanation  of  the  neglect 
of  the  quarries  is  that  they  are  not  likely  to 
afford  good  museum-pieces. 

With  an  expenditure  of  L.E.  500  a really 
comprehensive  study  of  quarrying  could  be 
made,  which  would  surely  add  greatly  to  our 
present  knowledge. 


CHAPTER  II 

DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  ASWAN  OBELISK 


HE  obelisk  lies  in  a quarry  on  the  south- 


east side  of  the  mediaeval  Arab  cemetery, 


being  about  a quarter  of  an  hour’s  drive 
from  the  Cataract  Hotel.  The  best  time  for 
visiting  it  is  either  early  in  the  morning  or  just 
before  sunset,  as  it  is  at  these  times  that  the 
guide-lines  on  the  upper  surface  of  the  obelisk 
and  the  curious  structure  of  the  trench  surround- 
ing it  are  most  clearly  visible. 

The  best  general  view  is  obtained  by  passing 
over  the  new  retaining  wall  at  the  butt,  and 
thence  up  past  the  vertical  face  of  rock  to  the 
hill  above  it.  Even  from  there,  owing  to  fore- 
shortening, it  is  difficult  to  realise  the  enormous 
size  of  the  monument,  which  is  one-third  as 
high  again  as  the  largest  obelisk  in  Karnak, 
and  more  than  triple  the  weight. 

Its  complete  dimensions  are  as  follows  : — 

Length 137  feet. 

Base  . . . . . . . . . . 13  feet  9 inches. 

Pyramidion  base  . . . . . . 8 feet  2 inches. 

Pyramidion  height 14  feet  9 inches. 

Weight  (if  it  had  been  extracted)  . . 1,168  tons. 

Photographs  of  the  obelisk  from  the  tip  and 
butt  are  given  in  figs.  3 and  4,  and  a plan  of  the 
quarry,  with  sections,  in  fig.  7,  p.  38.  From 
the  latter  it  will  be  seen  that  the  impression 


26  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 


gained  from  the  ground,  that  the  obelisk  is 
abnormally  thick  for  its  length,  is  incorrect. 

It  is  fortunate  that,  in  this  small  quarry,  we 
can  see  so  many  different  examples  of  the  methods 
of  the  old  workmen.  At  B,  fig.  22  (shown 
close  in  fig.  8),  we  see  examples  of  the  action  of 
ancient  wedges  and  chisels,  showing  how  easily 
the  Egyptians  could  cut  granite.  It  appears 
that  all  this  wedging  was  with  the  object  of 
removing  the  rock  to  let  the  tip  of  the  obelisk 
pass  when  it  was  rolled  out  of  the  quarry.  At 
A and  C,  fig.  7,  p.  38,  we  can  see  modern  chisel- 
dressing and  what  is  probably  a more  recent 
method  of  using  the  wedge,  which  is  by  cutting 
a long  channel  instead  of  a series  of  small  slots. 
Granite,  rotted  by  the  action  of  fire,  can  be 
picked  up  almost  anywhere  in  the  quarry ; 
test-shafts,  sunk  early  in  the  work  to  study  the 
quality  of  the  granite,  can  be  seen  at  C and  D 
in  fig.  7,  and  the  first  can  even  now  be  traced 
up  to  the  original  surface  of  the  quarry.  The 
trench,  by  means  of  which  it  was  intended  to 
separate  the  obelisk  from  the  rock,  is  another 
and  unique  example  of  the  ancient  method  of 
quarrying,  and  is  discussed  in  Chapter  IV.  The 
vertical  face  of  rock  above  the  obelisk  is  nothing 
but  the  interior  wall  of  another  perimeter-trench, 
from  before  which  a monument — ^possibly  an 
obelisk — has  been  removed  (fig.  18,  p.  50).  On 
this  face  we  have  the  records  of  the  work  of  the 
various  shifts  employed  (fig.  13,  p.  44  and  p.  46). 
Neither  this  nor  the  obelisk- trench  show  how 
the  monuments  were  to  be  detached  from  below. 


26] 


■ ,■>’ 


■i 


1 


Fig.  4.  -ASWAN  OBELISK  FROM  THE  WEST. 
{Page  25.) 


26] 


1 


DESCRIPTION  OF  ASWAN  OBELISK  27 

the  one  since  a sufficient  depth  had  not  been 
reached,  the  other  because  the  bed  has  been 
removed ; but  so  that  nothing  may  be  lacking, 
above  the  quarry-face  there  still  remains  the 
bed  from  which  a m,onument  of  about  23  feet 
long  has  been  taken.  We  could  wish  for  a 
larger  m,onument  from  which  we  might  study 
the  under-cutting,  since  what  applies  to  a 
medium-sized  block  does  not  always  apply  to 
those  of  very  large  size  ; but  we  must  be  grateful 
for  what  we  have. 

As  to  the  date  of  the  obelisk,  there  is  very 
little  indication  of  it ; since  it  was  a failure,  it 
was  in  nobody's  interest  to  record  it.  It  may 
have  been  of  the  time  of  Queen  Hatshepsowet 
(i.e.,  about  1500  B.c.),  since  large  obelisks  seem 
to  have  been  the  rule  in  her  time.  Further,  the 
outline  of  a smaller  obelisk  drawn  upon  the 
surface  of  the  large  one  (figs.  6 and  7),  which 
can  be  well  seen  just  after  sunrise,  is  of  almost 
exactly  the  same  dimensions  as  that  now  known 
as  the  Lateran  obelisk  at  Rome,  the  work  of 
Tuthmosis  III,  her  co-regent  and  successor. 
These  evidences  of  date  should,  however,  be 
accepted  with  a good  deal  of  caution. 

The  obelisk  was  abandoned  owing  to  fissures 
in  the  granite,  as  the  possibility  of  erecting  a 
very  large  obelisk  depends  entirely  on  the  rock 
being  sound,  particularly  near  the  middle  (p.  75). 
Here,  although  the  granite  is  of  extremely  good 
quality,  it  is  by  no  means  flawless,  and  from  the 
very  outset  of  the  work  the  cracks  and  fissures 
seem  to  have  given  the  ancient  engineers  a 


28  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 


great  deal  of  anxiety.  Though  parting  fairly 
evenly  under  the  action  of  wedges,  the  natural 
fissures  in  the  granite  are  most  erratic  ; a small 
fissure  in  one  level  or  position  may,  in  a couple 
of  metres,  become  a gaping  crack  into  which 
one  could  insert  the  blade  of  a knife ; con- 
versely, what  appears  to  be  a deep  fissure  may 
disappear  at  a lower  level.  Hence  each  crack 
had  to  be  rigorously  examined  to  see  its  probable 
effect  on  the  completed  obelisk.  The  methods 
by  which  this  examination  is  carried  out  are 
described  on  page  37. 

Fig.  7 (p.  38)  is  a plan,  with  sections,  of  the 
obelisk,  and  shows  all  the  fissures  (lettered  a,  &,  c, 
&c.),  and  nearly  all  the  guide-lines  (indicated  by 
Greek  letters).  These  show  clearly  that  attempt 
after  attempt  was  made,  by  reducing  the  size 
of  the  proposed  obelisk,  to  obtain  one  in  which 
the  granite  was  free  from  flaws. 

For  those  who  wish  to  examine  the  history 
of  these  attempts  in  greater  detail  the  following 
notes  may  be  of  service.  Very  early  in  the  work 
— almost  after  the  roughing-out  was  finished — 
it  was  found  that  fissure  0,  which  cuts  off  the 
corner  of  the  obelisk,  necessitated  reducing  its 
length  from  the  butt  end.  It  was  therefore 
reduced  4 cubits,  or  6 feet  10  inches,  and  a black 
line  (tt)  drawn  across  the  top  surface  of  the 
obelisk  and  down  the  sides  to  mark  off  the 
reduction.  The  depth  at  which  the  trench  was 
abandoned  at  the  butt  shows  how  early  it  was 
realised  that  a length  of  137  feet  was  impossible. 
Almost  as  soon  as  this  had  been  done  it  was 


Fig.  5.— hammer-dressing  ON  PYRA- 
MIDION  OF  ASWAN  OBELISK. 
{Page  36.) 


Fig.  6.— outline  OF  SCHEME  FOR  REDUCING  SIZE  OF  ASWAN  OIWLISK. 
28]  {Pages  27  and  29.) 


> 


DESCRIPTION  OF  ASWAN  OBELISK  29 

found  that  fissures  a,  &,  and  c necessitated 
shortening  the  obelisk  from  this  end  also.  The 
lines  t K \ are  the  successive  proposals  for 
reducing  the  length  of  the  shaft  in  order  to  obtain 
a flawless  piece.  Fissure  c,  however,  showed 
clearly  that  the  pyramidion  must  be  kept  quite 
clear  of  it,  since  it  widens  as  it  goes  deeper. 
Fissures  j,  k,  I and  m would  have  made  the 
quarry  (or  south)  side  of  the  obelisk  liable  to 
split,  so  in  a last  attempt  to  obtain  a perfect 
piece  of  stone  the  centre  line  rj  was  shifted  to  0, 
and  a very  much  smaller  obelisk  set  out  from  it. 
This,  as  has  been  noted  before,  is  almost  exactly 
the  size  of  the  Lateran  obelisk.  Even  this 
scheme  did  not  escape  the  fissures,  since  at  p 
there  is  a large  one,  running  right  into  the  obehsk, 
which  would  make  it  unsound  at  its  most 
vulnerable  point,  the  centre.  I have  no  doubt 
that  the  obelisk  was  abandoned  owing  to  fissure  p. 

It  may  be  of  interest  to  the  reader  to  compare 
the  sizes  and  weights  of  some  of  the  best -known 
obelisks.  Those  marked  with  an  asterisk  are 
scaled  off  photographs,  making  slight  allowances 
for  foreshortening.  (See  p.  30.) 

It  is  perhaps  no  more  than  a coincidence  that 
the  outline  for  the  Aswan  “ last  attempt ''  has 
a base  of  exactly  the  same  size  as  that  of  the 
fragment  before  Pylon  VII  at  Karnak,  namely, 
I0’3  feet,  from  which  M.  G.  Legrain,  the  late 
Director  of  Works,  deduced  a height  of  124  feet 
(37-77  metres).  He  assumed  that  the  taper 
would  be  the  same  as  that  of  Queen  Hatshep- 
soweFs  obelisk  at  Karnak,  which,  as  a matter 


30  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

of  fact,  is  less  than  all  others,  thus  making  the 
height  greater  than  it  would  be  with  the  average 
taper.  Last  year  a fragment  of  the  companion 
obelisk  was  found,  from  which  it  can  be  estimated 
accurately  that  the  base  of  the  pyramidion  was 
2-o8  metres  or  6*8  feet,  which  is  very  close  to 
the  Aswan  outline. 


OBELISK. 

BASE 

(feet). 

PYRA- 

MIDION 

BASE 

(feet). 

PYRA- 

MIDION 

HEIGHT 

(feet). 

TOTAL 

HEIGHT 

(feet). 

TAPER 
(see  foot- 
note 2). 

WEIGHT 

IN 

TONS. 

Aswan 

13*8 

8-2 

14*8 

137 

24*3 

1,168 

Aswan  (later  pro- 
ject)  . . . . 

10*3 

6-6 

17*4 

105 

23*7 

507 

Lateran^ 

9-8 

6*2* 

14-8* 

105-6 

29*3 

455 

Hatshepsowet  . . 

7*9 

5-8 

9*7 

97 

42-8 

323 

Vatican 

8-8 

5-9 

4*4 

83 

26-9 

331 

Luxor  

8*2 

5-1* 

6-4* 

82* 

28-2 

254 

Paris 

8-0 

5*1 

6-4 

74 

26-5 

227 

New  York^. . 

7*7 

5*3* 

5*4* 

69-6 

29-0 

193 

London 1 

7*8 

5*3* 

5*4* 

68-5 

27*4 

187 

Mataria^ 

6-2 

4’0* 

6-6* 

67 

27*5 

I2I 

Tuthmosis  I 

7-0 

4-6 

7*8 

64 

24-2 

143 

1 After  Gorringe,  Egyptian  Obelisks. 

2 By  taper  I mean  the  length  of  the  shaft  in  which  one  unit 
decrease  in  width  is  observed. 


All  over  the  quarries  at  Aswan,  and  especially 
round  the  obelisk,  may  be  seen  hundreds  of 
balls — some  whole  and  some  broken — of  a very 
tough  greenish-black  stone  known  as  dolerite, 
which  occur  naturally  in  some  of  the  valleys  in 
the  eastern  desert.  It  is  a curious  but  incon- 
testable fact  that  not  only  were  the  faces  of 
monuments  dressed  by  means  of  these  balls — 
which  has  been  long  known — but  that  they  were 
used  for  cutting  out  large  monuments  from 


DESCRIPTION  OF  ASWAN  OBELISK  31 

the  rock.  In  other  words,  they  are  the  tools  of 
the  quarrymen. 

On  the  face  of  the  high  rock  C (in  fig.  22, 
p.  60),  nearest  the  obelisk,  are  two  inscriptions, 
and  traces  of  others  now  barely  legible.  One 
reads,  in  the  Greek  character  : — 

AM 

CABINIANOC 

CEPAHEION 

OPCOY 

“ Am  . . . Sabinianos  (and)  Serapeion  (sons) 
of  Ursus.''  These  are  Greek  forms  of  Latin 
names,  probably  those  of  early  visitors  to  this 
quarry.  Close  to  this  inscription  there  is  another 
name  EPMEINOC,  Ermeinos,  cut  into  the  face 
of  the  rock. 

Two  large  embankments,  dating  from  ancient 
times,  may  be  seen  close  to  the  quarry ; one 
leads  westwards  from  the  quarry  above  the 
obelisk,  and  another  of  gigantic  size  leads  from 
the  low  desert  about  200  yards  east  of  the  obelisk 
up  to  the  quarries  on  the  high  desert.  This  can 
be  seen  even  from  the  Grenfell  Tombs  across  the 
river.  Neither  of  these  embankments  appears 
to  have  any  connection  with  the  great  obelisk. 


CHAPTER  III 

SETTING  OUT  AN  OBELISK 

IN  the  following  chapters  we  will  endeavour, 
by  deduction  from  the  facts  observed,  and 
from  ancient  records,  to  ascertain  every  step 
in  the  history  of  an  obelisk  from  the  moment 
when  the  ancient  engineers  arrived  at  Aswan, 
from  whence  all  the  obelisks  come,  to  the 
moment  when  it  is  standing  upright  before  the 
pylon  in  the  temple. 

Where  the  evidence  is  insufficient,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  details  of  the  huge  transport  boats, 
we  will  merely  record  the  meagre  facts  which 
have  come  down  to  us,  as  it  would  be  unwise 
to  credit  the  Egyptians,  in  order  to  explain  a 
difficult  point,  with  appliances  or  any  know- 
ledge which  we  are  not  certain  that  they 
possessed. 

At  Aswan  the  surface  of  the  granite  consists 
of  huge  boulders,  some  quite  large  enough  to 
provide  a door-jamb  or  even  a shrine,  but  none 
which  could  possibly  furnish  a moderate-sized 
obelisk.  It  must  have  required  great  experience 
to  judge  whether  there  was  likely  to  be  a long, 
flawless  piece  at  a moderate  depth.  Whether 
test-shafts  were  sunk  to  examine  the  quality 
of  the  granite  in  all  deep  work  I do  not  know, 
but  I think  it  most  probable,  though  in  my 
superficial  survey  of  the  quarries  I have  not 

32 


SETTING  OUT  AN  OBELISK  33 

found  any  examples  besides  the  two  in  the 
obelisk  quarry  (fig.  7,  at  C and  D). 

The  quickest  and  most  economical  way  of 
removing  the  top  layers  of  the  stratum  is  by 
burning  fires  against  the  rock,  which  causes  it 
to  break  up  very  easily,  especially  if  water  is 
poured  on  it  while  it  is  still  hot — a method  used 
in  India  at  the  present  day.  There  is  a good 
deal  of  evidence  to  show  that  the  Egyptians 
used  this  method,  and  it  seems  that  the  fires 
must  have  been  of  papyrus  reeds,  which  at  that 
time  probably  grew  abundantly  here  just  as  it 
infests  certain  parts  of  the  upper  reaches  of  the 
Nile  now.  There  are  indications  that  these  fires 
were  banked  with  bricks  against  the  surface 
to  be  destroyed.  Traces  of  burning  are  seen  at 
A and  B (fig.  18,  p.  50),  and  burnt  granite  can 
be  picked  up  almost  anywhere.  It  may  be 
remarked  here  that  the  burnt  granite  must  be 
distinguished  from  the  weathered  granite  and  that 
decomposed  by  the  ferruginous  layers  in  the 
stratum,  which  are  likely  to  be  confused  with  it. 

In  the  actual  obelisk  quarry,  wedge-marks 
are  seen  only  at  one  place.  The  large  blocks 
removed  by  a series  of  wedges  acting  in  a channel 
instead  of  in  slots  are  almost  certainly  of  a later 
date  than  that  of  the  obelisk.  The  (now) 
entrance  to  the  trench  is  also  a later  piece  of 
work,  as  the  fine  chisel-dressing  is  of  the  modern 
type,  and  I even  obtained  a block  from  here 
which  had  a hole  ''  jumped  for  blasting  with 
gunpowder.  Although  so  few  wedge-marks  have 
been  found  in  the  work  on  the  obelisk,  I believe 
3 


34  the  problem  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

that  they  were  freely  used  when  necessary ; 
where  a large  block  could  fall  away  from  the 
parent  rock,  wedges  were  probably  more  quick 
than  burning.  They  can  be  seen  in  thousands 
all  over  the  quarries.  They  are  usually  driven 
from  the  top  downwards,  but  some  may  be  seen 
which  have  acted  horizontally  and  some  even 
from  below.  It  has  been  asserted  that  the 
wedges  themselves  were  of  wood  and  made  to 
expand  by  wetting  them.  Without  wishing  to 
deny  that  the  Egyptians  knew  and  used  this 
method,  I will  merely  observe  that  the  taper 
of  the  slots  seems  so  great,  and  the  sides  of  the 
slots  so  smooth,  that  there  would  be  a great 
tendency  for  the  wedges  to  jump  out  after 
wetting  rather  than  exert  their  pressure  ; another 
point  is  that  it  would  be  a somewhat  difficult 
matter  to  wet  a horizontal  wedge,  and  still  more 
difficult  to  do  so  from  below.  I am  inclined  to 
think  that  the  normal  method  was  to  use  metal — 
perhaps  iron — wedges,  with  thin  metal  plates 
between  the  wedge  and  the  stone  which  are 
now  known  as  feathers.''  The  hammers  may 
well  have  been  of  stone  after  the  fashion  of  the 
Old  Kingdom  hammer  from  Gizeh  (of  black 
granite),  shown  in  fig.  lo,  p.  42.  The  method 
used  nowadays  is  to  make,  with  a steel  chisel, 
a series  of  small  holes  along  the  line  where 
fracture  is  required,  and  by  inserting  small, 
fat,  steel  punches  in  them  and  giving  them  in 
turn,  up  and  down  the  line,  moderately  hard 
blows  with  a sledge-hammer.  In  the  clearance 
of  the  obelisk  some  hundreds  of  large  blocks 


SETTING  OUT  AN  OBELISK  35 

had  to  be  broken  up  by  this  means  before  we 
could  conveniently  remove  them.  These  had 
apparently  been  thrown  down  from  the  quarry 
above.  Ancient  iron  wedges,  perhaps  dating 
to  800  B.C.,  are  given  in  Petrie,  Tools  and 
Weapons,  Plate  XIII,  B 16,  17.  Some  enormous 
wedge-slots  may  be  seen  at  the  top  of  the  rock 
in  fig.  8,  which  may  well  have  been  cut  for  use 
with  expanding  wooden  wedges. 

Having  reduced  the  granite  until  they  were 
satisfied  that  it  was  suitable  for  extracting  an 
obelisk,  and  before  dressing  the  surface  in  any 
way,  they  began  to  sink  squarish  holes  round 
what  was  to  be  the  perimeter  or  outHne  of  the 
obelisk.  This  may  well  have  been  measured 
out  by  cords  stretched  over  the  rough  surface. 
The  traces  of  these  pits  can  be  best  seen  in  the 
further  trench  in  fig.  7,  p.  38,  no.  3.  The 
method  of  making  these  pits  is  discussed  in  the 
next  chapter.  There  are  plenty  of  indications  that 
they  were  begun  before  the  surface  of  what  was 
to  be  the  obelisk  had  been  made  smooth.  For 
reasons  which  will  appear  later,  the  work  on 
the  pits  progressed  a good  deal  more  slowly 
than  that  on  the  trench,  so  that,  by  the  time 
the  work  had  reached  the  stage  at  which  it  was 
abandoned,  the  trench  workers  had  almost 
caught  up  with  those  engaged  on  the  pits.  Their 
object  appears  to  have  been  to  obtain  as  much 
knowledge  of  the  state  of  the  granite  below  as 
possible,  especially  as  regards  any  horizontal 
fissures  which  might  be  met  with,  unsuspected 
from  above. 


36  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

The  next  step,  an  extremely  laborious  process, 
was  to  render  the  surface  flat.  This  was  done 
entirely  by  bruising  with  the  balls  of  dolerite 
which  have  been  found  in  such  profusion  in 
the  quarry.  Examples  of  unfinished  top-dressing 
can  be  seen  at  the  pyramidion  and  near  the  butt, 
where  the  work  was  abandoned  early  (fig.  5, 
p.  28).  Whether  these  balls  were  used  by 
hand,  or  shod  in  some  way  on  rammers,  is 
doubtful.  It  seems  likely  that  they  were  so 
mounted  and  worked  by  several  men,  as  such 
blows  were  dealt  that  the  balls  were  sometimes 
split  in  two — almost  an  impossibility  by  hand. 

A smooth  straight  surface  along  and  across 
what  was  to  be  the  upper  face  of  the  obelisk 
was  almost  certainly  obtained  by  the  use  of 
what  we  now  call  ''  boning-rods.’'  These  are  a 
set  of  pieces  of  wood  of  exactly  equal  length, 
now  usually  made  T-shaped.  One  rod  is  held 
upright  at  each  end  of  the  surface  it  is  required 
to  straighten.  A man  standing  at  one  end  can, 
if  he  sight  along  the  top  of  these  rods,  see  if  a 
third  rod,  placed  somewhere  between  them,  is 
in  a line  with  them  or  not.  Thus  the  surface 
can  be  tested  anywhere  along  the  obelisk  and 
corrected  until  it  is  quite  flat.  Boning-rods  of 
small  size,  used  for  dressing  moderately  large 
blocks,  have  actually  been  found,  and  are  pub- 
lished in  Petrie,  Tools  and  Weapons,  Plate  XLIX, 
B 44-46.  These  measure  only  about  3 inches 
high,  and  their  tops  were  connected  by  a string. 
In  the  case  of  such  a monument  as  an  obelisk 
the  string  would  sag  and  produce  a concave 


SETTING  OUT  AN  OBELISK  37 

error.  The  visual  method,  quite  as  simple  and 
obvious,  seems  a legitimate  assumption. 

The  accuracy  in  the  work  of  obelisks  is  not  of 
a very  high  order,  unlike  the  tremendous 
accuracy  seen  in  the  Pyramids  of  Gizeh  and 
certain  Old  and  Middle  Kingdom  monuments. 
An  error  in  the  sides  of  the  base  is  quite  usual, 
sometimes  amounting  to  several  inches.  The 
two  obehsks  which  stood  before  the  temple  of 
Luxor  were  even  different  in  height  (see  dimen- 
sions of  Luxor  and  Paris  obelisks  on  p.  30). 
It  is  well  worth  while  to  examine  the  faces  of  the 
Karnak  and  Mataria  obelisks  at  the  moment 
when  they  receive  the  sun's  rays ; it  is  then 
that  one  can  see  how  considerable  are  the  errors 
in  flatness.  In  the  former  obelisk  faint  traces 
of  the  hammer-dressing,  such  as  is  seen  in  fig.  5, 
can  be  observed. 

In  the  Luxor  obelisk  which  was  removed  to 
Paris  there  appears  to  have  been  a convexity, 
intentionally  left  on  the  front  face,  to  counteract 
the  effect  of  concavity  which  is  noticed  in  some 
high  monuments.  This  was  the  regular  practice 
in  the  case  of  Greek  pillars,  and  is  known  as 

entasis."  I have  not  been  able  to  trace  it  in 
any  of  the  Karnak  obelisks  nor  in  the  unfinished 
obelisk  at  Aswan. 

As  soon  as  a crack,  fissure  or  even  unusual 
discoloration  appeared  in  any  part  of  the  obelisk, 
it  had  to  be  carefully  examined  to  see  how  far 
it  went,  and  whether  it  became  wider  as  the 
work  deepened.  Three  methods  of  examination 
are  to  be  seen  on  the  obelisk.  The  normal 


38  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

method  was  to  hammer  out  a depression  with 
the  ubiquitous  dolerite  balls  at  what  seemed  to 
be  the  end  of  the  fissure,  leaving  a small  oblong 
fillet  so  as  to  compare  the  appearance  of  the 
granite  at  the  surface  with  that  at  the  bottom 
of  the  depression.  These  examinations  can  be 
seen  in  fig.  7 at  j,  k,  n and  p,  n being  also  shown 
in  fig.  4,  p.  26.  Another  method  of  testing 
fissures  is  found  at  the  base  of  the  pyramidion  ; 
this  consists  of  cutting,  with  a metal  tool,  an 
oblong  hole,  tapering  sharply  downwards,  over 
the  fissure.  Here  it  was  done  to  see  the  extent 
of  fissures  b and  d.  It  is  possible  that  this 
method  was  used  when  it  was  desired  to  save 
time,  perhaps  on  the  occasion  of  an  inspection. 
The  third  method  was  to  cut — and  apparently 
polish — a deep  narrow  channel  right  along  the 
fissure  or  discoloration.  These  channels  are 
seen  in  fig.  7 at  g and  A,  and  in  fig.  6,  p.  28. 
It  has  been  asserted  that  these  channels  are  later 
attempts  to  cut  up  the  obelisk  for  monumental 
stone,  but  this  is  not  the  case,  as  g is  clearly  a 
continuation  of  fissure  &,  and  h could  never  have 
been  used  for  detaching  a piece  from  the  parent 
rock.  If  one  follows  i down  the  north  face  of 
the  obelisk  three  red  lines  can  be  seen  which 
were  drawn  by  the  foreman  for  the  guidance  of 
the  stonecutter. 

It  is  rather  difficult  to  say  whether  there  is  a 
difference  of  date  between  the  examinations  by 
channels  and  the  others  ; it  depends  on  the 
relative  dates  of  the  large  obelisk  and  the  last 
attempt.  I do  not  think  that  there  is  any  great 


• / 


SETTING  OUT  AN  OBELISK  39 

difference.  It  is  clear,  however,  that  the  channels 
belong  to  the  latter  work.  The  probable  explana- 
tion of  them  is  that  they  are  over  discolorations 
in  the  granite,  recognised  as  such  and  left  by 
the  original  workmen. 

Before  we  can  say  that  we  understand  every 
step  of  the  work  so  far,  we  have  to  inquire  into 
the  nature  of  the  tools  with  which  the  wedge- 
slots  were  cut.  This  is  a problem  that  has  not 
been  solved  with  certainty.  Not  only  could  the 
Egyptians  cut  granite  with  chisels,  but  they  could 
cut  even  harder  stones,  such  as  diorite  and  quart- 
zite. Though  iron  was  known  to  them  from 
the  earliest  times  (but  used  rather  sparingly), 
there  is  no  evidence  at  all  that  steel  was  used ; 
all  the  Egyptian  words  for  metals  have  been 
accounted  for,  none  of  which  could  be  applied 
to  it.  Another  indication  that  steel  was  un- 
known is  that  razors,  which  are  often  found, 
are  always  of  copper ; had  steel  been  known 
I think  that  razors  would  have  surely  been  made 
of  it.  Copper,  with  2 per  cent,  alloy,  can  be 
brought  by  hammering  to  the  hardness  of  mild 
steel,  and  it  seems  within  the  bounds  of  possi- 
bility that  the  Egyptians  could  bring  it  to  an 
even  greater  hardness. 

Wilkinson,  in  his  Manners  and  Customs  II, 
page  255,  cites  an  ancient  chisel  where  the 
malletted  end  was  worn  by  the  blows,  but  where 
the  cutting  edge  was  sharp.  This  may  well  be 
explained  by  the  fact  that  it  had  just  been 
re-sharpened,  but  I have  myself  seen  a chisel 
with  the  edge  split  like  a modern  machine-tool. 


40  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

I was  unable  to  purchase  this  specimen,  but  I 
tried  the  hardness  with  a knife  and  it  was 
obvious  that  any  great  temper  that  it  may  once 
have  possessed  had  disappeared.  An  examina- 
tion of  the  structure  of  ancient  copper  chisels 
shows  conclusively  that  the  copper  had  never 
been  raised  to  the  annealing  temperature. 

It  has  been  asserted  that  if  the  Egyptians 
had  known  steel  it  would  have  perished  by 
oxydisation.  This  is  not  borne  out  by  excava- 
tions, as  many  iron  tools  have  been  found,  such 
as  wedges,  halberds,  etc.,  which  are  hardly 
rusted  at  all.  In  some  soils  almost  anything 
will  be  preserved ; in  others  everything,  except 
perhaps  the  pottery,  perishes.  An  examination 
of  such  fragments  of  iron  tools  as  can  be  spared 
might  give  us  some  definite  information  as  to 
whether  any  of  them  were  of  steel  and  so  settle 
a vexed  question.  I have  spent  hours  trying  to 
cut  granite  with  iron,  copper,  and  even  dolerite 
chisels,  and  though  granite  can  be  cut — ^in  a 
manner  of  speaking — with  all  of  them  I am 
convinced  that  the  Egyptians  used  a much  harder 
tool.  There  is  still  a great  divergence  of  opinion 
on  this  subject,  which  is  best  left  open  until 
further  evidence  is  forthcoming. 


CHAPTER  IV 

EXTRACTION  OF  AN  OBELISK 

IN  this  chapter  we  are  concerned  with  the 
formation  of  the  obehsk  and  detaching  it 
from  the  surrounding  rock  for  transport. 
The  surface  of  the  rock  is  smooth  and  the  work 
on  the  pits  around  the  obelisk  is  weU  under  weigh. 

The  next  step  seems  to  have  been  to  mark 
on  the  surface  of  the  rock  the  outhne  of  the  pro- 
posed obehsk.  This  must  have  been  done  by 
the  normal  Egyptian  method  of  stretching  a 
cord  covered  with  ochre  or  lampblack  over  the 
proposed  centre  hne  and  allowing  the  cord, 
when  correctly  placed,  to  touch  the  stone.  The 
lines  were  next  made  permanent  by  scratching 
them  with  a metal  tool.  A pot  containing  red 
ochre  was  actually  found  during  the  clearance 
of  the  obelisk.  The  ochre  or  lampblack  was 
probably  mixed,  before  use,  with  acacia  gum. 

From  this  centre  line,  by  measuring  off,  the 
corners  of  the  pyramidion  and  base  were  cor- 
rectly marked  and  joined  up. 

Let  us  examine  the  structure  of  the  interior 
of  the  trench  ; we  are  struck  with  the  absence 
of  any  marks  of  wedges  or  chisels.  The  ancient 
chisels  leave  traces  which  are  easily  recognisable 
(figs.  8 and  9),  but  here  we  have  the  effect  of  a 
series  of  parallel,  vertical  cuts  ''  just  as  if  the 
rock  had  been  extracted  with  a gigantic  cheese- 
scoop.  A further  feature  of  the  trench  is  that 

41 


42  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

there  are  no  corners — everything  is  rounded. 
These  peculiarities  are  seen,  not  only  in  the 
trench,  but  in  the  pits  within  the  trench  and 
even  the  test~shafts  C and  D (fig.  7).  The  only 
tools  which  could  produce  this  effect  are  the 
dolerite  balls  of  which  we  have  already  made 
mention.  The  trench  and  pits  were  therefore 
not  cut  out,  but  rather  bashed  out.  These  balls 
measure  from  5 to  12  inches  in  diameter,  their 
weights  averaging  12  pounds.  They  are  of  almost 
natural  occurrence  in  some  of  the  valleys  in  the 
eastern  desert,  having  been  shaped  by  the  action 
of  water  in  geological  ages.  A more  economical 
or  efficient  tool  can  hardly  be  conceived.  I have 
buried  some  hundreds  of  these  behind  the 
retaining  wall,  as  even  their  size  and  weight  did 
not  protect  them  from  souvenir-hunters. 

The  blows  with  these  balls  were  struck  verti- 
cally downwards,  often  with  such  force  as  to 
split  them  in  two.  This  suggests  that  they 
were  shod  on  to  rammers,  as  it  is  almost  impos- 
sible to  break  them  by  hand.  The  only  way  I 
succeeded  in  doing  so  was  by  pitching  one 
down  from  a height  on  to  a pile  of  others.  This 
is  further  borne  out  by  the  fact  that  the  wear 
on  the  balls  is  not  even  over  the  whole  surface, 
but  appears  in  patches,  showing  that  they  were 
used  in  one  position  until  the  bruising  surface  had 
become  flat,  and  then  changed  to  another  position. 

If  we  enter  the  trench  we  see  that,  down  the 
division  between  each  concave  ''  cut,''  a red  line 
has  been  drawn,  apparently  by  means  of  a 
plum,b-bob  with  its  string  dipped  in  ochre. 


Fig.  8.— wedge  AND  CHISEL  MARKS 
NEAR  ASWAN  OBELISK. 

{Page  41.) 


Fig.  9.— rough  CHISEL-DRESSING  ON 
UNFINISHED  SARCOPHAGI  KNOWN 
AS  “EL-HAMMAMMaT”  near  ASWAN. 
(Page  41.) 


Fig.  10.— P.LACK  GRANITE  HAMMER  FROM  GIZEH. 
(Page  34.) 


42] 


/ 


./ 

/ 


X'.:/ 


I 


■4 


1 


Fig.  II.— interior  OF  SEPARATING-TRENCH  ROUND  ASWAN  OBELISK. 
{Pages  41  and  43.) 


Fig.  12.— VIEW  OF  TRENCH  ROUND  ASWAN  OBELISK  WHEN  STANDING  WITHIN  IT. 

42^ 


: m. 


fi 


•r 


1 


4 . 


EXTRACTION  OF  AN  OBELISK  43 

These  red  lines  are  not  continuous,  but  have 
been  projected  down  from  time  to  time  as  the 
bottom  of  the  trench  became  deeper.  The 
width  between  successive  lines  averages  ii*77 
inches,  there  being  very  little  variation  between 
examples.  These  divisions  seem  to  be  feet. 
The  main  measurements  of  the  obelisk  are  based 
on  the  royal  cubit  of  20*71  inches.  Whether 
this  foot  is  intended  to  be  on  the  same  system 
as  the  royal  cubit  I am  not  certain.  The  follow- 
ing table  shows  that  it  can  be  referred  to  it 
with  tolerable  closeness  : — 


Finger  . . . . (i)  • . . . *74  inches. 

Palm (4)  • • • • 2-95 

Foot (16)  .,  ii*8i  „ 

Common  cubit  , . (24)  . . . . 17*71  „ 

Royal  cubit . . . . (28)  . . . , 20-67  ,, 


Looking  down  the  trench  (fig.  ii)  we  see  that 
it  is  divided  into  a right  and  left  half  ; further, 
from  the  upper  quarry-face  (fig.  13,  p.  44),  it 
can  be  seen  that  the  vertical  measuring  chains  " 
described  on  page  46  only  occur  every  two 
feet-divisions  along  the  trench.  The  most 
reasonable  explanation  of  this  seems  to  be  that 
each  man  or  party  of  men  were  given  two  feet 
of  trench  as  their  task,  and  that  they  worked  it 
from  each  side  of  the  trench  alternately.  Some 
130  men  could  work  in  the  bottom  of  the  trench 
at  the  same  time,  possibly  assisted  by  260  more 
working  the  rammers  (p.  42)  from  above. 
When  the  granite  is  broken  up  by  means  of  the 
dolerite  balls  or  ''  pounders it  comes  away 
in  the  form  of  powder  and  not  as  flakes.  If  the 
powder  is  not  removed  every  few  minutes,  it 


44  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

soon  forms  a cushion,  and  the  effect  of  the 
blows  is  reduced  almost  to  nil.  Handing  the 
powder  out  of  the  trench  would  be  a great  waste 
of  time,  so  it  seems  most  likely  that  it  was 
brushed  on  to  the  part  of  the  task  which  was  not 
being  pounded ; that  is,  each  man  worked  on 
his  task  in  four  positions,  with  his  back  to,  and 
facing,  the  obelisk  on  his  right  and  left  foot  of 
trench.  There  is  only  one  way  by  which  such  a 
large  number  of  men  can  work  in  so  confined  a 
space  without  interfering  with  one  another, 
and  that  is  by  making  each  man  work  in  the 
same  relative  position  on  his  task,  and  when 
a change  in  the  position  is  required,  by  letting 
it  be  simultaneous.  We  have  no  means  of 
knowing  at  what  intervals  of  time  these  changes 
were  made. 

Nowadays  work  with  rammers  or  mindalah's, 
as  the  modern  Egyptians  call  them,  is  always 
done  to  a sort  of  chanty,  and  there  is  ample 
evidence  that  the  ancients  made  similar  use  of 
songs  to  help  them  in  their  labours.  We  can 
easily  picture  some  ancient,  leather-lunged  fore- 
man bawling  out  a prototype  of  the  modern 
mindalah  song : — 

(Chorus)  Ya  Sa3ryid  hizz 
(Foreman)  M’  Iskindivia  /isA-Shell5ll 
(Chorus)  Ya  Sayyid  hizz 
(Foreman)  Duqq*  y’  awUd  khabar  eyh  umm^l  ? 

O Sayyid,  brandish  the  Crescent  I 
From  Alexandria  to  the  Cataract. 

O Sayyid,  brandish  the  Crescent  1 
Bash,  boys,  what's  up  with  you  ? 

^ The  curious  fall  of  the  beat  may  horrify  the  Arabic  scholar, 
but  this  is  the  way  I have  so  often  heard  it. 


Fig.  13,— MEASURING-LINES  ON  UPPER  QUARRY  FACE,  ASWAN  OBELISK 
{Pages  43,  46  and  4':'.) 


•■rr- 


;.'  f ': 

• > 


, ■ _ Juf 


>( 


•4.  - ^ 


■> 


:.-g 


V':-, 


EXTRACTION  OF  AN  OBELISK  45 

with  130 — perhaps  390 — men  pounding  out  the 
beat.  With  a good  chanter  who  can  extem- 
porise rhyming  lines  full  of  highly-flavoured 
personalities,  the  work  the  Egyptian  can  do  is 
little  short  of  marvellous,  but  with  a bad  one 
the  tune  soon  degenerates  into  a kind  of  andante 
religioso,  resulting  in  remarks  from  the  Director 
of  Works  of  quite  the  reverse  kind.  This  is, 
however,  by  the  way. 

The  average  width  of  the  trench  is  about 
2 feet  6 inches,  and  it  is  possible  that  the  workmen 
were  given  a minimum  width ; but  this  is  not 
necessarily  the  case,  as  it  would  be  false  economy 
to  make  the  trench  too  narrow,  since  the  cramped 
position  of  the  man  in  the  trench  would  prevent 
him  getting  the  best  force  in  his  blows,  besides 
tending  to  make  him  pound  his  own  toes  instead 
of  the  rock.  In  some  places  the  trench,  after 
narrowing  as  it  gets  deeper,  suddenly  widens 
out  again.  I explain  these  narrowings — best 
seen  at  Z on  fig.  7 — by  the  fact  that  the  work 
of  a particular  shift  was  to  end  at  that  level, 
which  they  tried  to  reach  quickly,  knowing  that 
others  had  to  continue  it. 

When  one  considers  the  cramped  position 
of  the  men  pounding  out  the  pits  along  the  line 
of  the  proposed  trench  in  the  initial  stages  of 
the  work,  it  can  easily  be  understood  how  soon 
the  trench  parties  overhauled  them  (p.  35). 
The  work  on  the  original  test-shafts  must  have 
been  even  slower  still. 

As  to  the  manner  of  measuring  up  the  work, 
which  was  almost  certainly  done  by  forced 


46  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

labour — some  sort  of  corvee  perhaps — helped 
out  by  such  troops  and  captives  as  were  available, 
I am  convinced  that  it  was  by  piece  and  not  by 
time.  In  the  obelisk  trench,  the  work  appears 
to  have  been  measured  by  the  foreman  with  a 
scaled  rod,  from  the  various  red  and  black 
horizontal  lines  seen  in  great  profusion  on  the 
sides  of  the  trench  (for  examples  see  fig.  7, 
no.  6).  In  the  work  on  the  monument  which 
has  been  removed  from  before  the  upper  quarry- 
face  (fig.  13),  it  seems  that  the  work  was  measured 
up  after  every  two  or  three  days'  pounding  from 


Fig.  14.  Fig.  15.  Fig.  16.  Fig.  17. 

TRACES  OF  INSCRIPTIONS  ON  UPPER  QUARRY-FACE. 


the  bottom  of  the  trench  by  means  of  a rod  of 
three  cubits  length,  and  the  position  of  the  top 
of  the  rod  marked  with  a short  horizontal  red 
line,  which  was  connected  to  the  previous  mark 
by  an  inverted  Y.  This  seems  the  only  explana- 
tion of  the  curious  red  chains  seen  faintly  in  the 
middle  of  the  two-foot  tasks.  The  half-effaced 
chains  higher  up  seem  to  be  the  records  of  the 


EXTRACTION  OF  AN  OBELISK  47 

preceding  shifts.  These  appear  to  have  been 
distinguished  by  short  inscriptions  scrawled  by 
them  in  red  paint.  Most  of  these  inscriptions 
are  too  faint  to  transcribe.  Figs.  14-15,  from 
the  right  of  the  chains  in  divisions  VIII,  IX  and 
XII  respectively,  and  fig.  17,  from  the  left  of 
the  red  chain  of  division  VIII,  are  the  most 
complete  and  clear,  but  they  are  too  fragmentary 
to  translate.  They  may  originally  have  given 
some  information  as  to  the  party  engaged  in 
their  division.  At  the  extreme  left  of  the  upper 
quarry-face  there  are  traces  of  a hieratic  inscrip- 
tion of  two  lines  which  I have  not  been  able  to 
decipher  nor  to  photograph  with  any  clearness. 
It  is  in  black  paint,  and  appears  to  begin  with  a 
date  and  to  have  a number  in  the  middle,  but 
does  not  give  any  royal  name. 

It  is  rather  tempting  to  see,  in  the  black  lines 
a and  c (fig.  13)  on  the  upper  quarry-face,  the 
top  and  bottom  faces  of  a small  obelisk  with  b 
as  its  centre  line.  If  this  is  so,  the  taper  is  i in 
17*5,  which  is  sharper  than  other  obelisks. 
Line  c is  very  nearly  level,  and  both  b and  c are 
divided  into  feet  by  short  black  vertical  lines 
in  the  middle  of  the  pounded-out  grooves.  The 
reason  of  this  is  not  clear  to  me,  neither  have  I 
been  able  to  find  any  explanation  of  the  red 
line  d,  which  is  separated  from  the  line  a by 
2 feet,  nor  for  the  eyes  and  other  signs  which 
occur  at  various  places  on  the  face  of  the  rock. 
The  red  nefer  sign  under  the  eye  just  after 
division  XIII  is  usually  used  to  mean  ''  ground 
level ''  in  other  quarries,  but  it  certainly  has 


48  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

not  that  meaning  here,  though  it  may  well 
indicate  that  line  c,  at  the  top  of  the  sign,  is 
meant  to  be  level. 

To  return  to  the  trench,  it  is  interesting  to 
speculate  on  the  amount  of  time  which  was 
expended  in  making  it.  To  ascertain  this, 
I tried  pounding  for  an  hour  by  hand  at  various 
times  on  one  of  the  quarters  of  a two-foot  task, 
and  I found  that  I had  reduced  the  level  by  about 
5 millimetres  (*2  inches)  average.  With  practice 
I could  perhaps  have  done  more.  Let  us  assume 
that  the  ancients  could  extract  8 millimetres 
(3-15  inches)  per  hour  from  a similar  area  ; then 
the  time  taken  to  make  the  trench  must  be 
that  taken  to  do  the  deepest  part.  In  this 
obelisk  the  trench  would  have  to  be  165  inches 
to  make  it  of  square  cross-section  and  we  must 
allow  at  least  40  inches  for  under-cutting  (p.  49), 
making  a total  depth  of  trench  required  of  205 
inches.  Supposing  that  3*15  inches  were 
extracted  from  a quarter  of  each  party's  task 

per  hour,  it  will  require  g.^gx  12x  30 

months  of  twelve  hours  per  day.  The  under- 
cutting would  have  taken  at  least  as  long  again, 
even  though  it  could  be  done  from  both  sides 
at  once. 

Before  leaving  the  subject  of  the  time  taken, 
let  us  apply  the  results  obtained  from  my 
pounding  experiments  to  the  obelisk  of  Queen 
Hatshepsowet  at  Karnak,  of  which  the  measure- 
ments are  given  on  page  30.  To  the  base 
measurement  of  94  inches  we  must  add,  say, 


EXTRACTION  OF  AN  OBELISK  49 

30  inches  for  under-cutting,  making  a total 
depth  required  of  124  inches.  Calculating  in 
the  same  way  as  before,  we  find  the  time  neces- 
sary would  be  4*4  months,  working  twelve  hours 
a day.  For  detaching  it  from  below  we  may  add 
a similar  period,  making  8-8  months. 

It  is  recorded  by  the  Queen  that  they  are  of 
one  block  of  enduring  granite,  without  seam  or 
joining.  My  Majesty  exacted  work  thereon 
from  the  year  15,  the  first  of  the  sixth  month 
until  the  year  16,  the  last  day  of  the  twelfth 
month,  making  seven  months  of  exaction  in  the 
quarry.’'^  If  the  men  were  worked  in  continuous 
shifts,  this  work  could  have  easily  been  done 
in  the  time  she  mentions,  even  if  the  Egyptians 
were  not  able  to  break  up  the  granite  at  a much 
greater  rate  than  I was  able  to  do.  At  the  foot 
of  the  standing  obelisk  at  Karnak,  where  her 
inscription  appears,  she  implores  us  not  to  say 
it  is  a lie  ! but  rather  how  like  her  ! The 
calculation  above  at  any  rate  tends  to  give  her 
the  benefit  of  the  doubt. 

The  only  evidence  we  have  as  to  how  the 
obelisk  was  separated  from  the  rock  beneath 
it  is  to  be  found  above  the  upper  quarry-face, 
where  there  is  a bed  from  which  a monument 
22  feet  long  has  been  removed  (shown  in  fig.  19, 
p.  50).  The  bottom  of  the  trench  around  it 
can  still  be  traced,  and  the  two-foot  divisions  are 

^ The  months  refer  to  the  absolute  year.  The  regnal  year 
15  happens  to  end  in  the  middle  of  the  period  referred  to. 
Hence  the  apparent  error  in  the  number  of  months  stated. 
It  is  a quite  correct  total.  For  complete  translation  see 
page  102, 

4 


50  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

of  the  same  size  as  those  of  the  great  obelisk. 
Here  it  is  quite  clear  that  the  detaching  from 
below  was  done  also  by  pounding.  In  the  work 
below  the  monument,  though  the  two-foot 
divisions  of  each  party's  task  are  rigidly  main- 
tained, the  sub-divisions  into  a right  and  left 
half  have  become  very  irregular,  which  is  what 
would  be  expected  in  work  under  such  condi- 
tions. A curious  fact  is  that  the  monument 
has  been  snapped  off  when  the  workers  on  each 
side  had  nearly  met.  Whether  this  was  inten- 
tional or  not  cannot  be  known,  but  it  seems 
more  likely  that  it  was  accidental.  With  regard 
to  a large  obeUsk,  I think  we  may  safely  say  that 
it  was  neither  snapped  off  its  bed  nor  removed 
by  the  action  of  wedges  from  both  sides.  In  a 
very  long  monument,  the  strains  set  up  by  the 
uneven  expansions  of  the  wedges,  some  biting 
true  and  some  slipping  out  and  not  acting  at 
all,  would  probably  crack  the  monument  in 
two,  especially  in  the  case  of  an  obelisk  like  this, 
which  could  only  safely  stand  the  strains  due 
to  its  own  weight  (p.  75).  It  is  fairly  safe  to 
assume  that  all  large  monuments  were  com- 
pletely detached,  perhaps  by  driving  a series  of 
galleries  through  first,  packing  them  well  by 
wood  or  stone  as  near  the  centre  of  the  monu- 
ment as  possible,  and  then  removing  the 
remainder  of  the  rock.  There  is  no  evidence  at 
all  as  to  the  nature  of  the  packing. 

At  the  west  end  of  the  ridge  from  which  the 
small  monument  has  been  removed  there  is  a 
short  inscription  in  red  paint.  It  seems  to  begin 


Fig.  i8.— view  OF  ASWAN  OBELISK  FROM  THE  NORTH. 
(Pages  26  and  33.) 


Fig.  19.— bed  FROM  WHICH  A SMALL  MONU- 
MENT, PROBABLY  AN  OBELISK,  HAS  BEEN 
REMOVED. 

(Page  49.) 


50] 


1 


V ■ 


I 


i- 


I 

i 


i 


EXTRACTION  OF  AN  OBELISK  51 

with  the  words  ''  The  work  of/’  followed  by  a 
group  of  signs  which  are  not  intelligible  to  me. 
It  seems  that  the  last  group  of  signs  are  not 
hieroglyphs  at  all.  Such  illegible  groups  are  not 
rare  in  quarries. 

During  the  clearance  of  the  obelisk,  part  of  a 
letter  on  a piece  of  pottery  was  found.  Though 
extremely  fragmentary,  there  was  a remark 
on  it  about  beating  ” the  stone.  This  may 
well  refer  to  the  pounding  process  by  which  the 
monuments  were  extracted. 


CHAPTER  V 

TRANSPORT  OF  AN  OBELISK 

IN  the  last  chapter  we  discussed  the  methods 
by  which  the  quarrying  was  performed.  The 
next  step  was  the  removal  of  the  obelisk  from 
the  quarry,  and  its  transport  to  the  river  and 
thence  by  water  to  its  destination. 

It  might  be  remarked  that  the  Aswan  obelisk 
— the  largest  known — has  not  been  transported, 
but  I think  we  are  justified  in  assuming  that 
the  man  responsible  for  the  work  would  never 
have  begun  on  it  had  he  not  every  reason  to 
believe  that  he  could  carry  it  out.  Judging 
from  such  sketches  as  have  come  down  to  us 
of  the  character  of  Egyptian  kings,  they  were 
not  likely  to  tolerate  a failure,  unless  it  was 
from  some  unavoidable  cause.  We  must  bear 
in  mind,  too,  that  the  ancient  engineers  moved 
blocks  as  heavy  as  this  obelisk,  and  even  more 
unmanageable — the  colossi  of  Amenophis  III 
and  the  colossus  of  Ramesses  II  at  Thebes.  We 
shall,  therefore,  take  the  Aswan  obelisk  as  the 
basis  of  our  speculations  as,  if  we  can  account 
for  every  step  in  its  history  from  the  quarry  to 
the  temple,  we  can  account  for  that  of  any  other 
obelisk.  The  converse,  reasoning  from  a small 
obelisk,  would  not  necessarily  be  true. 

The  obelisk,  then,  is  lying  on  its  packing 
surrounded  by  the  trench,  but  detached  from  the 
parent  rock. 


52 


TRANSPORT  OF  AN  OBELISK  53 

If  we  look  at  the  surface  of  the  rock  outside 
the  north  (valley  side)  trench,  we  see  that  its 
level  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  surface  of  the 
obelisk.  The  parts  A and  B (fig.  7,  p.  38) 
have  most  certainly  been  removed  at  a later 
date  than  the  rest.  It  seems  that  a surface 
of  rock,  running  continuously  along  the  outside 
of  the  trench  at  the  same  level  as  that  of  the 
obelisk,  was  purposely  left.  It  might  be  urged 
that  this  is  merely  the  remainder  of  the  flattened 
surface  on  which  the  obelisk  was  set  out  (p.  36). 
This  may  well  be  the  case,  but  if  we  consider 
in  detail  how  the  obelisk  was  to  be  got  out  of 
the  pit  in  which  it  lies,  factors  arise  which  point 
to  a very  definite  reason  for  leaving  this  surface 
as  it  now  is. 

There  are  two  methods  by  which  the  obelisk 
can  be  removed  from  its  present  position  : one 
is  by  raising  it,  and  the  other  is  by  removing 
the  rock  from  in  front  of  it ; sliding  it  out  end- 
ways is  impossible  in  this  particular  case.  It 
may  be  mentioned  here  that  to  pull  the  obelisk 
over,  on  a level  surface,  would  require  some 
13,000  men,  which  I am  convinced  could  not  be 
put  on  ropes  in  the  constricted  area  of  the  quarry. 
To  roll  it  out  as  it  is  would  require  an  enormous 
quantity  of  rock  to  be  removed,  and  one  would 
think  that,  if  they  intended  to  use  this  method, 
they  would  have  begun  to  do  so  as  soon  as 
possible.  The  fact  remains,  however,  that  they 
have  not  begun  to  do  this,  though  they  are  well 
on  with  the  breaking  up  of  the  rock  (B,  fig.  22, 
p.  60)  to  let  the  tip  of  the  obelisk  pass  out. 


54  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

This  piece  of  rock  is  also  to  be  seen  in  fig.  8, 
p.  42. 

A combination  of  both  methods  seems  to 
have  been  intended,  and  the  reason  for  leaving 
the  north  trench  intact  was  for  the  use  of  large 
vertical  levers.  These  would  probably  be  tree- 
trunks,  some  two  feet  in  diameter  and  20  or 
more  feet  long,  inserted,  with  suitable  packing, 
in  the  trench,  with  many  men  pulling  on  ropes 
attached  to  the  top  of  them.  It  seems  that 
the  workmen  had  begun  to  reduce  the  rock  on 
the  quarry  side  of  the  obelisk  as  well,  so  that 
levers  could  be  used  from  there  also.  By  using 
these  levers  from  both  sides  of  the  obelisk  in 
turn,  it  could  be  made  to  rock  slightly  backwards 
and  forwards  and  gradually  be  raised  by  increas- 
ing the  height  of  the  packing  below  at  each  heave. 
By  this  means  the  base  could  be  raised  some 
8 feet  above  its  present  level,  and  the  quantity 
of  rock  to  be  removed  from  in  front  of  the 
obelisk  greatly  reduced  in  consequence. 

As  to  the  numbers  of  levers  needed ; it  can 
easily  be  calculated  that,  if  they  used  thirty 
20-foot  tree-trunks  at  a leverage  of  six  to  one, 
with  50  men  pulling  on  the  ropes  at  the  top  of 
each,  the  obehsk  would  move,  and  the  wood— 
whether  it  was  of  fir,  cypress  or  sycomore- 
fig — would  not  be  unduly  strained.  This  is  a 
conservative  figure,  and  I think  it  likely  that 
they  would  have  used  much  taller  trunks  with 
at  least  100  men  pulling  on  each.  On  the  further 
side  of  the  obelisk,  a comparatively  small  amount 
of  rock  would  have  to  be  removed  in  order  to 


TRANSPORT  OF  AN  OBELISK  55 

use  the  levers  as,  if  they  can  move  some  20 
degrees  back  from  the  vertical,  a sufficient  rise 
in  that  side  of  the  obelisk  could  be  obtained. 
As  the  base  of  the  obelisk  became  higher,  rock 
would  have  to  be  packed  behind  the  levers, 
and  on  the  valley  side  this  would  have  to  be 
very  considerable,  though  with  only  100  men 
per  lever  they  could  be  used  at  a slope. 

As  to  the  problem  of  packing  the  levers  and 
keeping  them  steady,  this  is  merely  a matter 
of  head-ropes  and  foot-ropes  and  could  have 
been  done  in  many  ways.  I do  not  propose  to 
speculate  on  which  particular  method  the 
Egyptians  used,  as  there  is  no  evidence  on  the 
subject. 

Directly  the  obehsk  had  been  raised  as  high 
as  possible,  the  destruction  of  the  rock  in  front 
of  it  would  be  done  by  wedging  and  burning, 
as  described  in  Chapter  III.  I should  think 
that  it  would  be  removed  until  there  was  a 
considerable  slope  downwards  to  the  valley 
below,  which  would  greatly  reduce  the  number 
of  men  required  to  roll  it.  At  the  last  heave 
of  the  levers  from  the  valley  side,  the  packing 
could  be  entirely  withdrawn,  and  sand  substi- 
tuted ; this  could  be  gradually  removed,  and 
the  obelisk  allowed  to  settle  down  on  to  its  edge 
and  a great  saving  of  men  effected  in  this,  its 
first  and  most  difficult  turn.  By  judiciously 
introducing  a bank  of  sand  where  the  middle 
of  the  face  of  the  obelisk  was  to  come,  and 
by  digging  below  its  edge,  the  rolhng  could  be 
made  to  approximate  to  that  of  a cylinder  and 


56  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

its  downward  journey  rendered  comparatively 
easy. 

The  ropes  for  rolling  the  obelisk  out  would  be 
passed  round  it  and  brought  out  to  anchorages 
in  front.  I believe  that  40  7^-inch  palm  ropes 
(or  their  equivalent),  pulled  by  6,000  men,  would 
be  sufficient  to  handle  the  obelisk  in  any  stage 
of  its  removal  down  the  valley.  Such  large 
ropes  would  have  to  be  pulled  by  handling- 
loops.  In  the  scene  of  the  transport  of  a great 
winged  bull  at  Nineveh,  they  can  be  seen 
passing  over  the  men's  shoulders,  being  attached 
at  both  ends  to  the  main  cable.  In  a photograph 
in  Wonders  of  the  Pasty  page  421  (Harmsworth 
Encyclopedias),  these  loops  can  be  seen  very 
clearly. 

The  occurrence  of  levers  is  so  rare  that  it  has 
been  doubted  whether  the  Egyptians  knew  of 
them.  I think  that  there  is  not  the  slightest 
doubt  that  they  did  know  of  them,  as  in  the 
temples  of  the  Theban  area  and  in  the  temple 
of  the  third  pyramid  at  Gizeh,  one  can  see  large 
blocks,  undercut  at  various  points  along  their 
length,  obviously  to  take  the  points  of  levers. 
In  a tomb  at  El-Bersheh  {Annates  du  Service  des 
AntiquiteSy  I,  p.  28),  an  acacia  branch,  with 
its  end  cut  to  a chisel  edge,  was  found,  which 
must  have  been  used  to  manipulate  the  lid  of 
the  sarcophagus.  It  might  be  asked  why  no 
very  large  levers  have  been  found.  The  reason 
is  that  large  baulks  would  not  be  abandoned  in 
the  quarry,  but  would  be  used  until  they  were 
no  longer  sound,  and  then  cut  up  and  re-used 


TRANSPORT  OF  AN  OBELISK  57 


for  other  purposes.  Like  timber  baulks  to-day, 
they  were  of  considerable  value,  and  not  thrown 
away  when  a j ob  was  completed.  The  Assyrians, 
at  any  rate,  knew  them,  for  in  a sculpture  of 
about  the  Vlllth  century  b.c.  there  is  a scene  of 
men  hauling  along  a colossal  bull  mounted  on  a 
sled  running  on  rollers,  with  men  overcoming  the 
initial  friction  with  levers  from  behind  (Layard, 
Discoveries,  Plates  X-XVII). 

We  know,  from  the  celebrated  sculpture  at 
Der  El-Bahari,  that  the  obelisks  of  Queen 


Fig.  30.— obelisk  OF  HATSHEPSOWET,  MOUNTED  ON  A SLED,  FROM  HER 
SCULPTURES  AT  D^R  EL-BAHARI. 


Hatshepsowet  were  transported  on  sleds.  Fig. 
20  is  taken  from  the  transport  scene.  It  was 
probably  done  by  the  court  artist  from  memory, 
and  though  the  general  impression  is  most  likely 
correct,  several  of  the  details  appear  to  be  wrong. 
Thus  he  slurs  over  the  manner  in  which  the 
baulks  of  timber  at  the  top  of  the  obehsk  were 
attached  to  those  on  the  sled,  which  must  have 
been  done  by  the  known  Egyptian  method  of 
the  ‘‘  Spanish  windlass,"'  that  is,  by  passing 
ropes  round  corresponding  baulks  and  tighten- 
ing them  after  the  manner  of  a tourniquet 
(fig.  28,  p.  70).  The  position  of  the  hauling-rope 
in  the  centre  of  the  obelisk  must  also  surely  be 
wrong,  as  that  would  be  the  very  worst  position 
for  pulling  the  obelisk ; the  rope  would,  of  course. 


58  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

be  attached  to  the  sled,  as  it  is  shown  in  other 
similar  scenes  which  have  come  down  to  us. 
It  seems  likely  too  that  the  obelisk  was  really 
on  the  sled  the  reverse  way  round  (p.  70).  The 
fact  that  the  Der  El-Bahari  obehsks  were  mounted 
on  sleds  is  no  proof  that  all  obehsks  were  so 
mounted  for  transport,  but  I think  it  most 
likely  that  they  were,  as  without  a sled  it  would 
be  extremely  difficult  to  attach  ropes  to  the 
obelisk  so  as  to  be  able  to  pull  it  lengthways  ; 
further,  a sled  would  be  an  excellent  shock- 
absorber  and  would  equalise  the  upward  pressure 
of  the  rollers  along  the  length  of  the  obelisk. 
This  is  almost  a necessity  in  such  a long  obehsk 
as  this,  as,  if  it  came  down  on  a roller  near  its 
centre  with  a jerk,  it  would  snap  in  two  (p.  75). 

Next  comes  the  vexed  question  whether  rollers 
were  used  in  conjunction  with  the  sled  or  not. 
It  has  been  assumed  by  certain  writers,  because 
in  the  tomb  scene  of  the  transport  of  the  6o-ton 
statue  of  Dhuthotpe  at  El-Bersheh  (Lepsius, 
Denkmaler,  II,  134,  and  p.  59)  the  sled  was 
merely  pulled  over  a wetted  track,  that  all  blocks 
were  so  transported,  whatever  their  size.  When 
it  is  reahsed  that  it  took  172  men — who  would 
puU  about  8 tons — ^to  haul  this  statue,  one 
hesitates  to  assert  that  a block  of  1,170  tons 
was  so  handled.  Caution  is  very  necessary,  but 
to  deny  that  rollers  were  known  in  Egypt,  as 
some  writers  would  have  us  do,  is  either  to 
invite  far  less  justifiable  assumptions,  or  to  bring 
all  reasoning  to  a standstill.  The  227-ton 
obehsk  now  in  Paris,  when  it  was  being  puUed 


TRANSPORT  OF  AN  OBELISK  59 

up  a slight  slope,  mounted  on  a sled  or  cradle  '' 
sliding  over  a greased  way,  required  a pull  of 
94  tons.  To  handle  the  Aswan  obelisk  in  this 
way  would  take  at  least  11,000  men,  which  is 


Fig.  21.— TRANSPORT  OF  THE  STATUE  OF  DHUTHOTPE,  FROM  HIS  TOMB 

AT  EL-BERSHEH. 


outside  the  bounds  of  possibility,  if  only  from 
considerations  of  space.  Small  rollers  have 
actually  been  found,  but  no  large  ones,  for  reasons 
already  given  for  the  absence  of  large  levers. 
It  is  rather  difficult  to  obtain  data  as  to  the  size 


6o  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

of  rollers  required  for  such  an  obelisk  as  that  of 
Aswan.  The  only  information  I can  give  is 
that  the  top  of  the  fallen  obelisk  of  Queen 
Hapshepsowet  rests  on  8-inch  diameter  pitch- 
pine  rollers,  spaced  about  a yard  apart,  and 
there  is  no  sign  of  any  crushing,  though  they 
have  been  there  for  many  years.  The  worst 
pressure  at  that  spacing  which  they  would  have 
to  bear  at  the  butt-end  of  the  Aswan  obelisk, 
if  it  were  placed  on  them  for  transport,  would 
not  exceed  ii  times  the  amount  they  bear  now. 

The  process  of  putting  the  obelisk  on  to  its 
sled  and  rollers  must  have  been  something  of 
this  kind  : at  the  foot  of  the  slope  leading  down 
from  the  quarry  the  sled — mounted  on  its  rollers 
and  track  baiilks — ^would  be  buried,  sighting- 
poles  being  put  in  to  mark  the  position  of  its 
axis.  The  obelisk  would  then  be  rolled  down 
the  slope  until  it  lay  exactly  over  the  sled,  and 
the  sand  dug  away  till  the  obelisk  settled  down 
on  to  it.  After  digging  the  sled  clear,  the  journey 
to  the  river  could  be  begun,  the  track  being 
packed  as  hard  as  possible,  most  probably  with 
baulks  of  timber  laid  down  lengthways  on  which 
the  rollers  could  run.  The  route  for  the  Aswan 
obelisk  would  almost  certainly  have  been  north- 
eastwards along  the  track  of  the  old  Barrage 
railway  (D-A,  fig.  22,  and  fig.  26,  p.  70),  until 
it  joined  the  embankment  F-E  which  leads  to 
the  river.  Its  exact  point  of  arrival  at  the  Nile 
is  hidden  by  the  modern  town. 

On  the  details  of  the  enormous  barges  on  which 
obelisks  are  known  to  have  been  transported. 


Fig.  22,— SKKTCH-PLAN  OF  THE  NEIGHBOURHOOD  OF  OBELISK  QUARRY,  ASWAN. 


TRANSPORT  OF  AN  OBELISK  6i 


I have  to  be  more  than  vague,  as  the  only  scene 
of  a boat  sufficiently  large  to  carry  an  obelisk 
is  that  on  the  Der  El-Bahari  sculpture,  where 
the  two  obelisks — probably  those  now  seen  at 
Karnak — are  both  placed  butt  to  butt  on  the 
same  barge  I The  boat  used  must  have  been 
over  200  feet  in  length.  Another  great  barge 
is  mentioned  (p.  94)  measuring  207  feet  long  by 
69  feet  broad,  which  carried  the  two  obelisks 


of  Tuthmosis  I,  and  we  have  a record  of  a third 
boat  in  the  Old  Kingdom,  made  by  one  Uni  of 
the  Vlth  dynasty,  which  was  102  feet  long,  and 
which  took  only  17  days  to  build  (Breasted, 
Ancient  RecordSy  I,  322,  and  II,  105). 

Mr.  Somers  Clarke,  in  Ancient  Egypty  1920, 
Parts  I and  2 (Macmillan  ; 2s.  quarterly),  has 
collected  all  known  facts  on  the  construction 
of  ancient  boats.  He  admits  that  the  details 
of  the  very  large  ships  are  quite  unknown,  as  the 
Der  El-Bahari  boat  already  referred  to  is  only, 
as  it  were,  an  impressionist  view,  and  from 
it  we  can  learn  little  of  its  internal  structure. 


/ 


TRANSPORT  OF  AN  OBELISK  63 

The  ancient  boats  in  the  Cairo  Museum  are  only 
of  quite  small  size  ; these  are  built  without  ribs, 
but  whether  the  obelisk-barges  were  of  this  type 
also  is  uncertain.  The  Der  El-Bahari  boats  are 
stiffened  by  means  of  a series  of  ropes  attached 
to  the  bow  and  stern,  passing  over  vertical 
supports  at  two  points  in  the  body  of  the  boat, 
thus  forming  what  is  now  known  as  a queen- 
truss  or  hog-frame.  This  method  of  stiffening  is 
well  shown  in  figs.  23  and  24.  It  is  better  to 
leave  the  question  of  the  large  boats  until  further 
evidence  is  forthcoming,  but  before  doing  so  I 
will  give  a passage  in  Mr.  Clarke's  article  which 
is  of  interest  to  the  general  reader.  He  says, 
quoting  from  a letter  from  the  late  Mr.  Francis 
Elgar,  Director  of  Naval  Construction  to  the 
British  Government : The  two  great  obelisks 

of  Karnak,  97  feet  6 inches  long,  could  be  carried 
on  a boat  about  220  feet  long  and  69  feet  beam, 
upon  a draught  of  water  of  about  4 feet  6 inches 
or  not  exceeding  5 feet."  Some  of  the  large 
Cook's  boats  approach  this  length,  but  their 
beam  is  very  different.  Mr.  Clarke  remarks 
later  : ''  Whence  came  the  necessary  knowledge, 
at  what  period  did  the  people  begin  to  accumu- 
late the  experience,  which  culminated  in  their 
power  to  deal  with  immense  weights  . . . not  only 
in  the  Xllth  and  XVIIIth  dynasties,  but  in  the 
Illrd  and  IVth  ? " 

It  is  a very  great  pity  that  the  scenes  of  the 
transport  by  boat  of  Hatshepsowet's  obelisks 
are  not  accompanied  by  a real  descriptive  text. 
All  that  we  can  learn  from  the  inscriptions  is 


64  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

that  the  boat  was  built  of  sycomore-fig,  and 
the  fact  that  a whole  army  was  mustered  at 
Elephantine,  or  Aswan,  to  load  the  obelisks  on 
to  it.  There  is  plenty  also  about  the  rejoicings 
of  the  priests,  marines  and  recruits  over  their 
arrival  at  Thebes.  The  scenes  themselves,  how- 
ever, show  us  that  the  obelisk-barge  was  towed 
by  three  rows  of  oared  tow-boats,  which  were 
arranged  nine  in  a row,  each  row  being  led  by 
a pilot-boat.  Near  the  great  barge  are  three 
boats  escorting  it,  in  which  religious  ceremonies 
are  apparently  being  performed.  We  see  the 
troops  on  the  shore  waiting  to  do  the  unloading, 
and  an  offering  being  performed  by  officials  and 
priests.  The  name  of  the  King,  Tuthmosis  HI, 
is  mentioned  in  the  laudatory  sentences  after 
the  Queen.  In  the  view  of  the  great  barge, 
which  is  badly  damaged,  the  obelisks  are  placed 
high  up  on  her  deck.  This  is  possibly  a trick 
by  the  artist  so  that  they  may  be  visible. 

There  is  only  one  practical  way  of  putting  a 
large  obelisk  into  a barge,  and  that  is  by  getting 
the  boat  as  close  to  the  bank  as  possible,  building 
an  embankment  round  and  over  it,  and  pulling 
the  obelisk  directly  over  the  boat  and  letting 
it  down  into  its  place  by  digging  out  the  filling 
from  beneath  it.  Possibly  a new  set  of  baulks 
and  rollers  were  already  prepared  inside  the 
barge.  The  boat  would  then  be  dug  clear  and 
the  journey  by  water  made.  Though  I see  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  the  rise  and  fall  of  the 
Nile  were  used  for  the  loading  and  unloading 
of  the  boat,  it  is  more  than  probable  that  it 


TRANSPORT  OF  AN  OBELISK  65 

was  arranged  that  the  water  journey  was  made 
at  high  Nile  to  minimise  the  risk  of  running 
aground. 

The  unloading  would  be  a rather  simpler 
matter.  An  embankment  would  be  constructed 
from  the  shore  to  the  boat  (and  around  it),  but 
only  reaching  to  the  level  of  the  rollers  of  the 
obelisk.  The  boat  would  be  destroyed — or  at 
least  the  prow  removed — and  the  journey  con- 
tinued towards  the  temple. 


5 


CHAPTER  VI 
ERECTION  OF  OBELISKS 
HE  ancient  method  of  setting  up  a large 


obelisk  has  been  a fruitful  subject  for 


speculation  for  generations,  and  many 
extraordinary  theories  have  been  put  forward 
by  archaeologists,  engineers,  architects,  and  that 
bane  of  the  serious  student,  the  reckless  exponent 
of  the  occult. 

In  mediaeval  and  modern  times,  the  erection 
of  an  obelisk  has  always  involved  capstans 
or  winches  actuating  a system  of  pulleys,  and 
in  most  cases  a ''  jack '' — either  hydraulic  or 
screw — ^has  had  to  be  called  into  use.  It  is 
generally  admitted  that  the  Egyptians  were 
not  familiar  either  with  the  screw-jack,  capstan, 
winch  or  the  system,  of  pulleys  arranged  to  give 
a mechanical  advantage ; it  is  even  debatable 
whether  they  knew  the  simple  pulley. 

Sheers  (see  fig.  41,  p.  116)  were  possibly 
known  in  principle,  though  we  have  no  proof 
of  it,  but  the  erection  of  an  obelisk  by  this  means 
must  involve  the  use  of  the  capstan  or  winch. 

This  leaves  levers  as  the  only  source  of  power 
except  the  employment  of  large  numbers  of 
men.  We  have  therefore  to  try  and  explain 
how  the  large  obelisks  were  erected  by  these 
means  only. 

Two  theories  stand  out  as  being  reasonable, 
though  both  leave  a good  deal  unexplained. 


66 


ERECTION  OF  OBELISKS  67 

One  is  that  the  edge  of  the  obelisk  was  placed 
so  as  to  engage  in  the  narrow  notch  which  always 
runs  along  one  side  of  the  surface  of  the  pedestals 
(see  fig.  25,  A-B),  and  that  it  was  gradually 
levered  up,  the  earth  being  banked  behind  the 
levers  at  each  heave,  until  the  obelisk  was  leaning 
against  an  earth  slope  at  a sufficiently  steep 
angle  to  permit  it  to  be  easily  pulled  upright. 
This  method  was  actually  used  for  the  erection 
of  the  memorial  obelisk  of  Seringapatam,  but 
the  obelisk  only  weighed  some  35  tons.  Some 
of  the  reasons  against  this  having  been  the 
Egyptian  method  are  as  follows  : — 

(a)  The  Egyptians  could  introduce  obelisks 
inside  courts  whose  walls  were  shorter  than  the 
length  of  the  obelisk.  Queen  Hatshepsowet  put 
hers  between  her  father's  pylons  where  there 
was  a court  of  Osirid  figures,  and  there  is  no 
evidence  at  all  that  any  of  the  walls  had  been 
removed  or  rebuilt ; in  fact  I am  certain  that 
they  were  not. 

(b)  Some  obelisks  are  so  close  to  their  pylons 
that  there  would  hardly  be  room  for  the  huge 
levers  which  would  have  had  to  be  used. 

(c)  After  pulling  the  obelisk  upright  there  is 
nothing  to  stop  it  from  rocking  about  and  getting 
out  of  control.  The  lowering  of  the  New  York 
obelisk  (p.  118)  showed  clearly  that,  once  it  was 
on  the  move,  head-ropes  were  more  than  un- 
reliable in  checking  the  momentum  of  such  a 
mass. 

(d)  The  obelisk  of  Hatshepsowet  at  Karnak 
has  come  on  to  its  pedestal  askew  (see  fig.  25), 


68  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

and  has  never  used  the  notch  at  all,  as  its 
edge  is  quite  sharp  and  unburred.  This  shows 
that  the  notch — an  essential  for  this  method — 
was  not  an  essential  for  the  ancient  method. 

The  other  theory  is  that  the  obelisk  was 
pulled  up  a long  sloping  embankment  until 

it  was  at  a 
height  well 
above  that  of 
its  balanc- 
ing-point or 
'"centre  of 
gravity,'' 
and  that 
ear  thwascut 
from  below 
it  carefully 
until  the  ob- 
elisk settled 
down  on  to 
the  pedestal 
with  its  edge 
in  the  ped- 
estal - notch, 
leaning,  as  in  the  last  method,  against  the  end 
of  the  embankment.  From  thence  it  was  pulled 
upright. 

The  use  of  a large  sloping  embankment  is 
more  than  likely,  as  (see  note  a above)  the 
obelisk  was  obviously  lowered  on  to  its  pedestal 
and  not  raised  at  all ; this  method,  however,  has 
some  serious  objections,  which  may  be  summed 
up  briefly : 


Fig.  25. 

POSITION  OF  THE  BASE  OF  HATSHEPSOWET’S 
OBELISK  ON  ITS  PEDESTAL. 


ERECTION  OF  OBELISKS  69 

{a)  It  would  be  extremely  risky  business  to 
cut  earth  from  below  an  overhanging  obelisk 
of  500  tons  and  upwards.  Anyone  who  has 
seen  earth  undercut  below  a large  stone  in 
excavating  work  or  elsewhere  knows  that  the 
earth  has  a partiality  for  slipping  sideways  in 
any  direction  but  the  expected — preferably  on 
to  the  heads  of  one's  workmen. 

{b)  To  make  an  obelisk  settle  down  from  a 
height  on  to  a small  pedestal  by  under-cutting 
would  be  an  impossibility.  Whatever  method 
the  Egyptians  used,  it  was  certaifiy  and  did  not 
depend  on  the  skill  of  the  men  with  the  pick 
and  basket. 

{c)  See  note  c on  the  levering-up  theory, 
which  is  equally  applicable  here. 

A method  which  is  mechanically  possible 
and  which  meets  all  observed  facts  is  that  the 
obelisk  was  not  let  down  over  the  edge  of  an 
embankment,  but  down  a funnel-shaped  pit  in 
the  end  of  it,  the  lowering  being  done  by  remov- 
ing sand,  with  which  the  pit  had  been  filled, 
from  galleries  leading  into  the  bottom  of  it,  and 
so  allowing  the  obelisk  to  settle  slowly  down. 
Taking  this  as  the  basis  of  the  method,  the  form 
of  the  pit  resolves  itself  into  a tapering  square- 
sectioned  funnel — rather  like  a petrol-funnel — 
fairly  wide  at  the  top,  but  very  little  larger  than 
the  base  of  the  obelisk  at  the  bottom.  The 
obelisk  is  introduced  into  the  funnel  on  a curved 
way  leading  gradually  from  the  surface  of  the 
embankment  until  it  engages  smoothly  with  the 
hither  wall  of  the  funnel.  The  sand  is  removed 


70  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

by  men  with  baskets  through  galleries  leading 
from  the  bottom  of  the  funnel  to  convenient 
places  outside  the  embankment.  Fig.  27  shows 
a model  of  such  an  embankment,  in  which  the 
proportions  of  the  obelisk  and  pylon  are  the  same 
as  those  of  the  temple  of  Luxor.  The  opening 
in  the  front  of  the  embankment  at  ground  level 
leads  into  the  bottom  of  the  left  wall  of  the  funnel 
inside,  entering  just  above  the  pedestal,  over 
which  the  funnel  is  built.  In  this  photograph 
the  slope  of  the  surface  of  the  embankment  is 
somewhat  exaggerated  ; in  reality  it  must  have 
been  very  gradual,  like  that  shown  in  fig.  26, 
The  model  of  the  embankment  is  almost  exactly 
a scale  model  of  that  which  is  given  in 

the  Anastasi  Papyrus  (see  p.  89).  The  obelisk, 
which  is  of  limestone,  is  a xwtt  scale  model 
of  the  Aswan  obelisk.  By  a curious  coincidence 
they  seem  suitable  to  each  other. 

In  fig.  28,  the  obelisk  has  arrived  at  the  top 
of  the  slope  and  is  overhanging  the  sand  in  the 
funnel.  The  model  is  made  sectional  as  far  as 
the  funnel  is  concerned,  and  it  must  be  imagined 
that  a portion  of  the  side  of  the  embankment  has 
been  removed  in  order  to  show  what  is  going  on 
inside.  A vertical  sheet  of  glass  has  been  put 
in  the  place  of  what  would  have  been  the  front 
wall  of  the  funnel  to  keep  the  sand  from  pouring 
out. 

As  to  how  the  sled  was  separated  from  the 
obelisk  I am  not  certain  ; it  matters  the  less 
since  there  are  several  simple  ways  by  which 
this  can  be  done.  In  this  series  of  photographs 


Fig.  26.— gigantic  EMBANKMENT  FOR  TRANSPORTING  STONE,  ASWAN. 
(Pages  31  and  70.) 


Fig.  27.— sectional  MOrJEL  OF  AN  I<:MBANKM1<NT,  TO  SHOW  METHOD  OF 
ERECTINC,  OBELISKS. 

(Page  70.) 


70] 


1 


I 


r 


fe' 


ERECTION  OF  OBELISKS 


71 


the  simplest  method  has  been  used,  though  I 
do  not  in  any  way  insist  that  it  was  the  ancient 
way. 

In  fig.  29  the  overhanging  part  of  the  sled 
has  been  removed,  and  in  fig.  30  the  obelisk  has 
been  allowed  to  slide  forward  into  the  sand, 
and  the  attachments  of  the  hind  part  of  the  sled 
taken  away.  Though  this  method  would  be 
quite  suitable  for  any  of  the  standing  obelisks 
of  Egypt,  in  the  case  of  the  Aswan  obelisk,  where 
the  least  jerk  would  be  fatal,  I imagine  that  the 
obelisk  would  be  rolled  on  baulks  right  over  the 
sand,  and  the  sled,  baulks  and  rollers  cut  and 
dug  away,  a rather  more  tedious  process.  It 
has  been  suggested  to  me  that  the  obelisk  and 
sled  went  down  the  funnel  together.  My  objec- 
tion to  this  is  that  a heavy  obelisk  and  the  light 
sled  would  part  company  on  the  way  down, 
especially  since  the  sled  would  be  held  back 
in  the  initial  stages  of  the  descent  by  the  very 
great  friction  against  the  curve  leading  into  the 
funnel.  It  would  also  be  a difficult  matter  to 
gauge  the  exact  position  of  the  pedestal-notch 
so  that  the  edge  of  the  obelisk  should  engage 
in  it. 

Fig.  31  shows  the  obelisk  on  its  way  down.  In 
this  model,  the  sand  was  not  actually  removed 
through  the  galleries  at  the  front  and  end  of 
the  embankment,  but  was  allowed  to  run  out 
through  a slit — placed  where  the  pedestal-notch 
should  be — in  the  bottom  of  the  funnel,  directly 
under  its  left  wall.  The  descent  of  the  obelisk 
in  the  model  is  quite  automatic,  and  it  comes 


72  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

down  every  time  as  shown  in  fig.  32,  but  in  an 
actual  erection  the  rate  of  descent  would  be 
much  slower  and  the  flow  of  the  sand,  which  in 
the  model  produces  a decided  dynamic  effect, 
would  be  absent.  It  is  more  than  probable 
therefore  that  men  would  go  down  with  the 
obelisk  and,  by  digging,  correct  any  tendency 
of  the  obelisk  to  lean  sideways  and  to  ensure — 
if  necessary  by  inserting  baulks  (struts)  between 
the  base  of  the  obelisk  and  the  opposite  wall  of  the 
funnel — that  it  did  not  jam  against  it.  After 
the  position  shown  in  fig.  31  had  been  passed, 
there  would  be  little  fear  of  a jam.  It  seems  to 
have  been  neglect  of  these  precautions  which 
allowed  HatshepsowePs  standing  obelisk  at 
Karnak  to  come  down  too  far  forward,  and  so 
miss  the  notch  on  the  pedestal  altogether 
(fig.  25,  p.  68). 

The  obelisk  should  come  to  rest  as  shown  in 
fig.  32,  lying  flat  against  the  left  wall  of  the  funnel. 
I have  made  several  experiments  in  the  slope 
of  the  sides  of  the  funnel  and  the  form  of  the 
leading-in  curve,  and  I find  that  a wide  range  of 
variation  will  produce  the  desired  results.  The 
only  necessity  appears  to  be  that  the  left  wall 
of  the  funnel  must  be  straight  until  it  is  of  a 
height  of  at  least  two-thirds  the  height  of  the 
balancing-point  of  the  obelisk  before  the  curve 
begins. 

If  the  position  of  the  bottom  of  the  funnel  as 
regards  the  pedestal  is  so  arranged  that  the  notch 
in  the  latter  comes  directly  under  the  left  wall, 
the  obelisk  will  come  down  on  to  the  interior 


72] 


Fig.  31.— obelisk  H.\LF-\VAY  DOWN  THE  FUNNEL. 
{Page  71.) 


I ■) 


■) 


■ . A*- 


•V 


"■  V . ■ ■ 

i . . ' 


1 . - 


ERECTION  OF  OBELISKS 


73 


edge  of  the  notch  instead  of  on  its  own  edge,  which 
wiU  thus  be  preserved  from  damage.  Hatshep- 
soweCs  obelisk,  through  missing  the  notch, 
split  the  corner  B severely,  which  had  to  be 
rounded  off  to  cover  up  the  defect.  Besides  this, 
the  notch  had  another  function,  which  was  to 
prevent  the  obelisk  from  twisting  when  it  was 
pulled  upright,  and  the  Queen's  obelisk — again 
through  missing  the  notch — has  twisted  con- 
siderably, its  position  being  CDEF  instead  of 
C'D'E'F'  (fig.  25,  p.  68).  It  is  likely  that  part 
of  the  wall  of  the  funnel  had  to  be  cut  away  to 
enable  the  obelisk  to  be  pulled  upright,  though 
in  any  case  I should  imagine  that  enough  space 
was  left  between  the  base  of  the  obelisk  and  the 
funnel  to  enable  men  to  get  round  and  remove 
any  stones,  etc.,  which  might  have  come  down 
in  the  sand.  It  is  seen,  therefore,  that  the 
notch,  although  not  an  essential  to  the  process 
of  erection,  is  necessary  for  a perfect  piece 
of  work. 

As  soon  as  the  obelisk  had  come  down  into 
its  notch  (fig.  32),  men  would  enter  through  the 
gallery  leading  in  from  the  end  of  the  embank- 
ment, and  clear  every  particle  of  sand  from 
under  the  base,  before  it  was  pulled  upright 
(fig-  33)-  Any  tendency  to  rock  after  passing 
its  dead-centre  could  be  avoided  by  filling  the 
space  between  the  obelisk  and  the  further  wall 
of  the  funnel  with  coarse  brushwood  to  act  as 
a sort  of  cushion.  The  reason  why  I suppose 
that  the  sand  was  removed  from  the  front 
gallery  (which  leads  into  the  left  side  of  the 


74  the  problem  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

funnel)  is  that,  if  it  were  removed  through  the 
end  gallery,  there  would  be  a far  greater  likeli- 
hood for  the  obelisk  to  jam  against  the  opposite 
wall,  since  the  flow  of  sand  would  be  forwards 
rather  than  from  under  the  obelisk. 

An  alternative  possibility  for  the  form  of  the 
funnel  is  that  it  had  vertical  walls  in  a transverse 
sense,  the  width  being  but  very  slightly  greater 
than  that  of  the  base  of  the  obelisk  ; in  other 
words,  made  so  that  the  obelisk  entered  like  a 
penny  in  the  slot.  By  this  means,  full  advantage 
would  be  taken  of  the  weight  of  the  sand  above 
the  obelisk,  which  would  have  the  effect  of  bring- 
ing the  base  downward.  I think,  however,  that 
the  advantage  gained  would  be  discounted  by 
the  difflculty  of  controlling  the  descent  by 
digging,  etc.,  but  it  is  a possibility  which  must 
be  taken  into  serious  consideration. 

In  the  base  of  the  now  fallen  obelisk  of 
Tuthmosis  HI,  which  stood  before  the  pylons 
of  Tuthmosis  I at  Karnak,  there  are  two  rounded 
depressions  near  the  centre.  These  may  have 
been  for  inserting  soft  wooden  blocks  to  act  as 
shock-absorbers  and  to  prevent  the  obelisk  from 
tilting  itself  upright,  prematurely,  in  its  descent. 
The  curious  marks  on  the  pedestal  of  the  west 
obelisk  of  Luxor  Temple  may  have  fulfilled  a 
similar  purpose. 

It  is  noteworthy,  in  the  pedestals  of  the  various 
obelisks,  that  their  notches  are  not  on  the  river 
side  of  the  pedestals,  even,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
obelisk  which  once  stood  before  Pylon  VII  at 
Karnak,  when  the  distance  to  the  river  was 


ERECTION  OF  OBELISKS 


75 


nearly  400  yards.  To  obtain  sufficient  height 
in  the  embankment,  this  obelisk  had  to  be 
taken  directly  inland  and  brought  back  on  an 
embankment  which  must  have  been  constructed 
right  over  the  Sacred  Lake.  Existing  pylons 
prevented  it  from  being  brought  to  its  pedestal 
parallel  to  the  river,  as  was  done  in  the  case  of 
the  obelisks  of  Tuthmosis  I and  III  on  the  axis 
of  the  temple  at  Karnak.  This  is  another  hint 
that  the  embankment  theory  is  correct. 

Before  we  can  say  that  the  funnel  theory  is  a 
possibility,  we  have  to  make  sure  that  the 
largest  obelisk  known  will  not  break  owing  to 
its  great  weight  when  supported  at  or  pivoting 
round  its  centre  of  gravity  or  balancing-point. 
The  non-technical  reader  will  grasp  this  point 
better  if  he  realises  that  a model  obelisk  like  that 
shown  in  the  photographs,  which  can  be  sup- 
ported anywhere,  and  even  leaned  upon  as  well, 
without  breaking,  will  not  behave  in  the  same 
way  if  it  is  magnified  some  200  times,  although 
the  proportions  are  identical  and  the  material 
the  same.  The  strain  due  to  its  own  weight  is 
proportional  to  the  linear  dimensions  of  the 
monument.  I will  not  give  here  the  extremely 
wearisome  calculation  for  the  strain  set  up,  but 
it  is  given  in  full  in  The  Aswan  Obelisk,  and  shows 
that  even  it  could  be  supported  anywhere 
without  straining  the  granite  to  more  than 
two-thirds  what  it  can  possibly  stand.  This  is 
a narrow  enough  margin,  and  to  endure  this 
strain  the  granite  would  have  to  be  flawless. 
Although  the  mathematics  of  the  Egyptians  was 


76  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

totally  incapable  of  determining  such  stresses, 
they  knew  very  well  that  such  a long  obelisk, 
if  not  perfectly  sound,  would  inevitably  break 
during  the  erecting  process,  if  not  long  before. 
One,  called  Dhutiy  (p.  io6),  mentions  in  his  tomb 
inscription  at  Thebes  that  he  erected  two  obelisks 
of  io8  cubits  in  length,  but  unless  the  obelisks 
were  much  thicker  than  all  known  examples  in 
proportion  to  their  length,  they  would  not  have 
stood  the  strain  of  transport  and  erection. 

The  greater  colossi,  such  as  those  of ''  Memnon 
and  the  gigantic  granite  figure  of  Harnesses  II 
in  the  Ramesseum,  must  have  been  erected  in 
much  the  same  manner  as  obelisks.  The  notches 
in  the  pedestals  show  them  to  have  been  brought 
in  sideways,  probably  when  they  were  merely 
roughed  out.  There  must  have  been,  of  course, 
slight  differences  in  the  technique  of  the  process, 
especially  in  the  form  of  the  funnel ; the  edges 
of  the  colossi,  too,  come  flush  with  the  edge  cf 
the  pedestals  with  the  notches  well  inside  them. 
It  seems  likely  that,  in  the  case  of  colossi,  the 
notch  was  filled  with  wood,  on  to  which  the 
monument  came  down  ; that  is,  the  edge  of  the 
colossus  was  protected  by  the  raised  baulk  of 
wood,  held  steady  in  the  notch,  instead  of  by 
the  notch  itself.  This  subject  needs  a good  deal 
of  further  study. 

One  of  the  more  surprising  theories  on  the 
erecting  process,  which  savours  somewhat  of 
Heath  Robinson's  mechanical  studies,  may  be 
of  interest.  This  is  that  put  forward  by  Auguste 
Choisy  in  UArt  de  bdtir  chez  les  Egyptiens, 


ERECTION  OF  OBELISKS 


77 


According  to  him  the  obelisk  was  raised  by  a 
series  of  weighted  horizontal  levers  acting  along 
its  length,  earth  being  banked  under  the  obelisk 
at  each  heave,  suitable  supporting  surfaces  for 
the  fulcra  of  the  levers,  in  the  form  of  masonry 
sides  to  the  bank,  being  made,  and  heightened 
as  the  obelisk  rose.  Fig.  34,  taken  from  his  book, 
makes  this  clear. 

His  method  of  erecting  is  shown  in  figs.  35  and 
36.  He  says  : ''  Having  arrived  at  a height  a, 
let  us  pass,  below  it, 
cross-beams  c and  a pivot 
(tourillon)  n.  Now  noth- 
ing prevents  us  from 
getting  rid  of  the  earth 
and  constructing  a 
glissiere,  or  slide,  g. 

Having  made  the  slide, 
let  us  replace  the  re- 
moved earth  by  sand; 
let  us  remove  the  supports  c and  take  away  the 
sand.  The  obelisk,  pivoting  about  will  reach 
position  a",  and  finally  attain  the  vertical  above 
its  base  b.  It  will  be  sufficient,  to  prevent  it 
going  too  far,  to  reserve  at  a buffer,  and  to 
hold  back  the  top  of  the  obelisk  by  head-ropes.’' 

He  does  not  tell  us  what  the  tourillon  is  to  be 
made  of  to  stand  the  enormous  strain,  nor  does 
he  give  any  details  as  to  the  nature  of  the  slide 
which  would  allow  the  point  of  the  sled  to  slide 
over  it  and  not  jam  hard.  His  attachment  of  the 
obelisk  on  the  sled  and  the  recess  in  the  latter  for 
holding  back  the  obelisk  are  quite  unsupported 


Fig.  34.— CHOISY’S  SUGGESTION 
FOR  RAISING  OBELISKS. 


78  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE^OBELISKS 

by  any  evidence.  He  goes  on  to  say  that  the 
obelisk  was  lowered  down  on  to  its  pedestal 


by  puncturing  filled  sand-bags  wliich  had  been 
packed  between  it  and  the  pedestal  when  in 
position  a'".  His  explanation  of  the  notch  is 


ERECTION  OF  OBELISKS 


79 

that  it  was  to  take  a sausage-shaped  bag,  which 
was  to  be  punctured  last,  after  having  removed 
the  debris  of  the  others.  The  mechanics  of  the 
method  seem  to  me  to  be  quite  unsound,  and 
the  crushing  of  the  inner  edges  of  the  pedestal- 
notches  and  the  position  of  HatshepsoweCs 
obehsk  on  its  pedestal  are  not  explainable  by 
Choisy's  theory. 

It  is  rather  difficult  to  say  whether  the 
Egyptians  used  scale  models  of  obelisks  to  deter- 
mine their  weights  and  balancing-points,  and  to 
rehearse  the  erecting  process.  I am  of  opinion 
that  they  did  ; at  any  rate,  there  are  quite  a 
number  of  small  obelisks  known  ; one  of  Amen- 
ophis  II  has  just  been  found  at  Aswan,  which 
weighed  under  a ton.  Apart  from  the  determina- 
tion of  the  bending  stress  (p.  75),  the  convenience 
of  making  use  of  models  in  this  way  cannot  have 
escaped  them.  The  final  function  of  these  small 
obelisks  seems  to  have  been  to  place  them  on 
either  side  of  shrines,  and  especially  of  the 
Divine  Boats.  We  have  the  description  of 
the  furniture  provided  for  the  sacred  barge  of 
the  god  Amun  in  the  time  of  Amenophis  III. 
We  are  told  (Breasted,  Ancient  Records,  II, 
§ 888) 

It  was  made  very  wide  and  large ; there  is  no 
instance  of  the  like  being  done.  Its  . . . is  adorned 
with  silver,  wrought  with  gold  throughout ; the 
great  shrine  is  of  electrum,  so  that  it  fills  the  land  with 
its  brightness  ; its  bows  are  as  bright.  They  bear 
great  crowns,  and  serpents  twine  along  its  two  sides 
to  protect  them.  Flagstaves,  wTOught  with  electrum. 


8o  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

are  set  up  before  it,  with  two  great  obelisks  between 
them  ; it  is  beautiful  everywhere. 

A model  of  a temple  of  the  time  of  Seti  I 
was  found  near  .Cairo,  in  which  the  base,  which 
is  of  gritstone,  shows  the  sockets  in  which  the 
model  pylons,  colossi,  obelisks  and  even  the  last 
pair  of  the  avenue-sphinxes  were  fixed.  Although 
this  does  not  appear  to  have  been  an  architect's 
working-model,  having  probably  served  some 
religious  purpose  in  the  temple  like  the  tools 
and  implements  always  found  in  temple  founda- 
tion-deposits, it  at  least  shows  that  the  Egyp- 
tians were  no  strangers  to  making  models  of 
things  other  than  tools,  furniture  and  objects 
of  art. 

I had  intended  to  devote  a chapter  to  the 
polishing  and  engraving  of  obelisks  after  they 
were  set  up,  but  our  knowledge  of  the  engraving  of 
the  hard  rocks  is  so  vague  that  it  can  be  summed 
up  in  a paragraph.  The  details  of  the  processes, 
as  given  in  the  various  works  on  the  subject, 
are  not  clear  to  me — perhaps  owing  to  my 
reprehensible  habit  of  making  experiments.  The 
fundamental  principles  are,  however,  tolerably 
plain,  and  are  summed  up  in  Prof.  Petrie's 
Arts  and  Crafts  in  Ancient  Egypt.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  the  faces  of  the  obelisks  were  dressed 
by  the  dolerite  balls  until  they  were  as  flat  as 
possible,  tests  being  made,  as  in  engineering 
work  to-day,  by  putting  against  them  a portable 
flat  plane  smeared  with  red  ochre  and  oil,  or 

ruddle  " as  the  red  lead  and  oil,  now  used  for 
this  purpose,  is  called.  Prof.  Petrie  says  that 


ERECTION  OF  OBELISKS 


8i 


it  was  considered  flat  enough  if  the  touches  of 
red  ochre  from  the  plane  were  not  separated  by 
more  than  an  inch,  but  I think  he  means  this 
to  refer  to  the  sarcophagi  and  medium-sized 
monuments.  In  an  obelisk  the  accuracy  seems 
to  have  been  far  less  (p.  37).  The  basis  of  the 
polishing  and  the  engraving  was  most  certainly 
emery  stone  and  powder.  There  are  indications 
that  granite  was  cut  with  tubular  drills  and 
sometimes  sawn,  but  we  are  more  than  doubtful 
how  the  emery  was  used.  On  page  72  of  the 
work  quoted,  the  situation  is  summed  up  as 
follows  : “ The  difficult  question  is  whether  the 
material  (em,ery)  was  used  as  loose  powder, 
or  was  set  in  the  metal  tool  as  separate  teeth. 
An  actual  example  was  found  in  the  prehistoric 
Greek  palace  of  Tiryns.  The  hard  limestone 
there  has  been  sawn,  and  I found  a broken  bit 
of  the  saw  left  in  a cut.  The  copper  blade  had 
rusted  away  to  green  carbonate,  and  with  it 
were  some  little  blocks  of  emery  about  a sixteenth 
of  an  inch  long,  rectangular,  and  quite  capable 
of  being  set,  but  far  too  large  to  act  as  a loose 
powder  with  a plain  blade.  On  the  Egyptian 
examples  there  are  long  grooves  in  the  faces  of 
the  cuts  of  both  saws  and  drills  ; and  grooves 
may  be  made  by  working  a loose  powder.  But, 
further,  the  groove  certainly  seems  to  run  spirally 
round  a core,  which  would  show  that  it  was  cut 
by  a single  point.  . . . The  large  hieroglyphs 
(p.  74)  on  hard  stones  were  cut  by  copper  blades 
fed  with  emery,  and  sawn  along  the  outline 
by  hand ; the  block  between  the  cuts  was 
6 


82  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 


broken  out,  and  the  floor  of  the  sign  was 
haramer-dressed  and  finally  ground  down  with 
emery/' 

Before  leaving  the  subject  of  the  mechanical 
details  connected  with  obelisks  it  may  be  of 
interest  to  inquire  whether  the  Egyptians  ever 
took  them  down.  Pliny  (p.  88)  tells  us  that, 
under  the  Ptolemies,  obelisks  were  moved,  and 
we  are  very  certain  that  the  Romans  and 
Byzantines  did  so  on  several  occasions  (p.  no). 
We  have  only  one  indication  on  this  point, 
but  it  is  of  interest,  since  the  inclusion  of  the 
word  ''  obelisks  " on  a pylon  not  only  answers 
the  question,  but  makes  us  reconsider  the  usually 
accepted  dating  of  an  important  building.  The 
evidence  is  as  follows  : On  the  pylon  of  Ameno- 
phis  III  behind  the  Great  Hypostyle  Hall  at 
Karnak,  now  known  in  the  guide-books  as 
Pylon  III,  the  king,  in  an  inscription  on  the 
east  face,  tells  how  wonderfully  he  decorated  it. 
The  inscription  concludes  : — August  ...  of 
electrum  and  obelisks. . . Now  when  Tutankh- 
amun,  some  25  years  after  his  death,  celebrated 
the  return  to  the  worship  of  Amun,  he  cut  reliefs 
of  the  procession  on  the  screen-walls  of  the  great 
colonnade  of  the  Temple  of  Luxor.  He  shows 
twice,  in  great  detail,  the  pylon  of  Amenophis  III, 
with  its  flagstaves  and  scenes,  but  there  are  no 
obehsks  shown.  During  the  Aten  heresy  all 
building  work  in  Thebes  was  stopped  in  the 
temple  of  Amun.  The  inference  is  that  Ameno- 
phis III  himself  took  them  down.  The  only 
reason  for  him  taking  them  down  would  be 


ERECTION  OF  OBELISKS  83 

because  he  had  the  Hypostyle  Hall,  or  at  least 
the  central  colonnade,  in  his  mind.  This  is  far 
more  likely  than  the  supposition  that  Haremhab 
or  Harnesses  I put  such  a colossal  piece  of  work  in 
hand,  as  their  building  activities  were  smaU. 
Such  a conception  is  quite  in  keeping,  however, 
with  the  character  of  Amenophis  III.  The 
piUars  are  of  typical  XIXth  dynasty  work,  so  the 
king  must  have  died  almost  as  soon  as  the 
plan  of  the  new  building  had  been  set  out. 
The  explanation  that  he  took  down  the  obelisks 
to  put  them  in  the  temple  of  Monthu,  north  of 
the  main  temple,  is  unlikely,  as  the  king 
would  not  take  down  his  obelisks  from  the  most 
important  site  in  Upper  Egypt  and  put  them 
in  a far  less  important  place.  Another  indication 
that  the  Temple  of  Monthu  was  not  their  destina- 
tion is  that  the  pedestals  of  the  obelisks  there 
show  that  they  were  comparatively  small ; to 
my  mind  too  small  to  have  been  those  used  before 
his  pylon  in  the  main  temple.  Where  these 
obelisks  actually  went  is  rather  a mystery, 
unless  the  king  took  them  across  the  river,  after 
having  ordered  a new  pair  for  his  great  temple 
behind  the  Colossi  of  ''  Memnon,''  which  we 
know  was  furnished  with  obehsks.  It  is  gener- 
ally admitted  that  the  Grand  Colonnade  at 
Luxor,  which  was  completed  by  Tutankhamun 
and  usurped  by  Haremhab,  was  commenced  by 
Amenophis  HI  as  an  addition  to  his  own  temple  ; 
it  is  therefore  not  unreasonable  to  suppose 
that  he  also  began  a similar  building  before 
his  pylon  at  Kamak.  WTiether  these  additions 


84  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

were  intended  by  him  to  be  hypostyle  halls  or 
colonnades  is  uncertain  ; I think  the  latter 
is  more  probable,  since  Tutankhamun,  from 
the  little  we  know  of  him,  would  not  have  done 
more  than  complete  any  building  he  found  nearly 
finished.  If  he  had  found  a hypostyle  hall,  the 
columns  would  all  have  been  of  one  height  in 
whatever  state  of  completion  the  hall  happened 
to  be,  since  it  appears  to  have  been  the  Egyptian 
method  to  fill  the  building  up  with  earth  as  the 
work  became  higher.  The  transformation  of  a 
hypostyle  hall  into  a simple  colonnade  would 
have  been  a formidable  undertaking.  At  Karnak, 
the  history  of  the  work  appears  to  have  been  as 
follows  : Haremhab  and  Harnesses  I carried  on 
with  the  plan  of  a colonnade  left  by  Amenophis, 
and,  before  he  died,  Harnesses  I was  able  to 
inscribe  his  name  on  one  of  the  columns.  When 
Seti  I — a great  building  king — came  to  the 
throne,  he  changed  the  whole  scheme,  and 
developed  the  colonnade  of  Amenophis  HI  into 
the  Great  Hypostyle  Hall.  All  this  speculation 
is  raised  by  the  inclusion,  on  a pylon,  of  the  word 
obelisks.^' 


CHAPTER  VII 


SOME  ANCIENT  RECORDS 

SOME  idea  as  to  the  number  of  men  employed 
on  the  transport  of  stone  can  be  obtained 
from  the  following  three  accounts  of  expe- 
ditions. 

King  Menthuhotpe  IV,  of  the  Xlth  dynasty, 
sent  an  expedition  to  the  Wady  Hammammat 
to  quarry  stone  for  a large  sarcophagus,  and  it 
is  recorded  that  10,000  men  were  sent  out  there. 
We  are  further  told  that  it  took  3,000  sailors 
from  the  Delta  Provinces  to  remove  the  lid, 
which  measured  13  feet  10  inches  by  6 feet 
5 inches  by  3 feet  2 J inches  deep,  from  the  quarry 
to  the  river.  The  ''  sailors  ''  were  probably  a 
pressed  gang  of  the  amphibious  inhabitants  of 
the  Delta  lakes.  The  expedition  seems  to  have 
been  fortunate,  as  we  are  told  that  not  a man 
perished,  not  a trooper  was  missing,  not  an  ass 
died,  and  not  a workman  was  enfeebled  (Breasted, 
Ancient  Records y I,  § 448). 

In  the  reign  of  King  Amenemhet  III,  of  the 
Xllth  dynasty,  an  official,  also  called  Amenem- 
het, was  sent  to  the  same  spot  for  10  statues, 

85 


86  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 


each  8 feet  8 inches  high.  The  personnel  was 
made  up  as  follows  (Breasted,  Ancient  Records, 
l,  § 710) 


Necropolis  soldiers  . . . . . . . . 20 

Sailors  . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 

Quarrymen  . . . . . . . . . . 30 

Troops  . . . . . . . . . . . , 2,000 


Under  Harnesses  IV  a large  expedition  was 
again  sent  to  the  Wady  Hammammat  for 
monumental  stone.  It  numbered  8,362  persons, 
and  consisted  of  : — 


High  Priest  of  Amun,  Ramesses-nakht,  Director 
of  Works 

Civil  and  military  officers  of  rank 

Subordinate  officers 

Trained  artificers  and  artists  . . 

Quarrymen  and  stonecutters  . . 

Gendarmes 
Slaves 
Infantry  . . 

Men  from  Ayan  . . 

Dead  (excluded  from  total) 


I 

9 

362 

10 

130 

50 

2.000 

5.000 
800 
900 


8,362 


It  will  be  seen  from  these  figures  that  huge 
numbers  of  men  were  sent  far  afield  for  monu- 
ments much  smaller  than  the  Aswan  obelisk. 
It  seems  to  have  been  the  custom  to  use  troops 
on  this  unpleasant  kind  of  fatigue.  It  might 
be  observed  by  the  facetiously-minded  person 
that  the  present-day  unpopularity  of  all  recruit- 
ing measures  in  Egypt  is  but  an  inherited  race- 
instinct,  As  there  was  always  a garrison  at 
Aswan,  large  numbers  of  men  would  be  available 


SOME  ANCIENT  RECORDS  87 

at  very  short  notice.  Another  point  in  the  above 
list  is  the  relatively  small  proportion  of  actual 
quarrymen  and  stonemasons.  Since  the  rock 
in  the  Wady  Hammammat  was  basalt — and 
very  hard — it  is  more  than  probable  that  the 
extraction  of  the  monuments  was  done  by 
pounding,  and  that  the  quarrymen  and  stone- 
masons were  only  needed  to  direct  the  unskilled 
labourers  and  to  perform  the  skilled  work,  such 
as  making  the  wedge- slots  when  necessary  and 
to  examine  the  quality  of  the  rock.  How  much 
finishing  was  done  out  in  the  desert  we  have  no 
means  of  knowing. 

The  record  of  Queen  Hatshepsowet  as  to  the 
length  of  time  spent  on  the  Karnak  obelisks 
is  given  on  pages  49  and  104. 

In  a papyrus  known  as  the  Papyrus  Anastasi  I, 
which  is  a kind  of  collection  of  model  letters 
for  scribes  to  copy,  one  scribe  called  Hori  writes 
to  another  called  Amenemope  hinting  that  he 
is  not  up  to  his  job.  He  says  (Gardiner,  Egyptian 
Hieratic  Texts,  § XIII)  : — An  obelisk  has  been 
newly  made  ...  of  no  cubits  (190  feet)  ; its 
pedestal  is  10  cubits  (17J  feet)  square,  and  the 
block  of  its  base  makes  7 cubits  in  every  direc- 
tion ; it  goes  in  a slope  (?)  towards  the  summit 
(?)  one  cubit  one  finger,  its  pyramidion  is  one 
cubit  in  height,  its  point  measuring  two  fingers. 
Combine  them  so  as  to  make  them  into  a list, 
that  thou  mayest  appoint  every  man  needed  to 
drag  it.  . . T Here  the  obelisk  is  extremely 
long,  with  a ridiculously  short  pyramidion,  and 
the  problem  is  an  impossible  one  to  solve  for 


88  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 


anyone  who  is  not  acquainted  with  the  results 
of  previous  work  in  the  quarry,  and  who  is  not 
familiar  with  the  ground  to  be  covered.  The 
figures  given  are  only  sufficient  to  determine 
the  weight  of  the  obelisk.  If  such  a problem 
was  a typical  one  that  scribes  had  to  solve,  the 
conclusion  is  that  some  kind  of  statistical  record 
was  kept  in  the  archives  of  the  various  seats  of 
learning  to  which  the  scribes  had  access.  In 
other  words,  the  experience  of  previous  under- 
takings was  at  the  disposal  of  the  scribes. 

Details  of  the  transport  of  the  winged  bull  at 
Nineveh  are  given  on  pages  56  and  57,  and  of 
the  transport  of  the  statue  of  Dhuthotpe  on 
page  58. 

Greek  and  Roman  writers  throw  very  little 
light  on  the  transport  and  erection  of  large 
monuments  except  in  giving  dimensions  of  the 
blocks  transported.  Herodotus,  in  Book  II, 
Chapter  175,  tells  us  that  King  Amasis  II 
brought  a building  of  one  stone  from  Elephantine 
which  measured  34  feet  7 inches  by  23  feet  by 
13  feet  externally,  and  30  feet  10  inches  by 
20  feet  by  8 feet  4 inches  internally,  and  that  the 
2,000  men  appointed  to  convey  it — ^who  we  are 
told  were  all  pilots — took  three  whole  years  to 
perform  their  task. 

Pliny,  in  his  Natural  History,  Book  XXXVI, 
Chapter  14,  gives  a slightly  more  valuable 
account  of  how  King  Ptolemy  Philadelphus  had 
an  obelisk  transported  to  Alexandria.  He  tells 
us  that  it  was  done  by  digging  a canal  from  the 
Nile  to  the  spot  where  the  obelisk  lay,  passing 


SOME  ANCIENT  RECORDS  89 

below  it,  so  that  the  obelisk  was  supported  on 
either  bank.  Two  large  barges  loaded  with 
stones  were  unballasted  below  the  obelisk  which, 
rising,  received  its  weight.  This  may  well  have 
been  true,  but  it  was  not  the  way  in  which  the 
Egyptians  transported  them,  for  there  is  no 
trace  of  a canal  near  the  Aswan  quarries. 

The  Egyptians,  as  it  has  already  been  remarked, 
have  left  us  practically  no  information  at  all 
as  to  how  they  erected  their  obelisks.  There 
is,  however,  a passage  in  the  Anastasi  Papyrus 
which  refers  to  the  erection  of  a colossus,  and 
which  is  perhaps  worth  recording  here,  since 
it  is  fairly  certain  that  the  principle  of  the 
erection  of  the  larger  colossi  was  very  similar 
to  that  of  the  erection  of  an  obelisk  (p.  76). 
The  text  gives  : — ''  It  is  said  to  thee  : Empty 
the  magazine  that  has  been  loaded  with  sand 
under  the  monument  of  thy  Lord,  which  has 
been  brought  from  the  Red  Mountain.  It 
makes  30  cubits  stretched  on  the  ground  and 
20  cubits  in  breadth  . . . -ed  with  100  chambers 
(?)  filled  with  sand  from  the  river  bank.  The 
. . . of  its  chambers  have  a breadth  of  44  (?) 
cubits  and  a height  of  50  cubits,  all  of  them 
. . . in  their  . . . Thou  art  commanded  to 
remove  (overturn)  it  in  six  hours.''  Here,  owing 
to  errors  in  re-copying,  and  our  slight  knowledge 
of  the  technical  terms  mentioned,  we  are  at  a 
total  loss  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  second 
sentence. 

In  the  same  papyrus  (§  XIII)  there  is  a refer- 
ence to  an  embankment  which  may  well  have 


90  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

been  intended  for  the  erection  of  an  obelisk, 
as  the  problem  immediately  following  it  is  that 
dealing  with  the  transport  of  an  obehsk,  which 
has  already  been  quoted.  The  scribe  Hori  puts 
the  problem  thus : — There  is  a ramp  to  be 
made  of  730  cubits  (418  yards)  with  a breadth 
of  55  cubits  (31-5  yards)  consisting  of  120 
compartments  (?)  filled  with  reeds  and  beams 
having  a height  of  60  cubits  (34-4  yards)  at  its 
summit.  Its  middle  is  30  cubits  (17*2  yards), 
its  batter  15  cubits  (8*6  yards),  its  base  (?)  5 
cubits  (2-87  yards).  The  quantity  of  bricks 
for  it  is  asked  of  the  commander  of  the  army* 
Behold  its  measurements  are  before  thee  ; each 
one  of  its  compartments  is  30  cubits  long  and 
7 cubits  broad.  . . Here,  as  before,  the 
words  ''  compartment  ” and  ''  base  ''  are  of  very 
doubtful  meaning,  and  it  is  difficult  to  arrive 
at  any  definite  idea  on  the  construction  of  the 
ramp  apart  from  its  overall  measurements* 
However  one  tries  to  arrange  compartments  in 
the  ramp,  an  impossible  situation  follows,  so  we 
are  compelled  to  believe  that  there  is  some 
error  in  the  figures  due  to  re-copying.  It  is 
likely  that  the  compartments  refer  to  the  internal 
division  of  the  ramp  which,  as  it  were,  is  a brick 
box,  filled  with  earth  for  economy  ; on  the  other 
hand,  the  word  may  mean  the  externally  visible 
sections  or  towers  always  found  in  very  large 
brick  walls.  For  full  notes  on  these  walls,  see 
Somers  Clarke,  Journal  of  Egyptian  Archceology, 
Vol.  VII,  p.  77. 

The  only  account  of  the  erection  of  an  obelisk 


SOME  ANCIENT  RECORDS 


91 


by  the  Egyptians  is  that  given  by  Pliny,  which 
cannot  fail  to  appeal  to  those  who  have  had 
the  fortune  (?)  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  an 
Egyptian  dragoman.  He  must  have  livened  up 
the  visitors  even  in  those  days.  Phny  was 
told  that  King  Rhamsesis,'*  when  an  obelisk 
was  being  put  up,  feared  that  the  machinery 
employed  would  not  be  strong  enough,  so  he  had 
his  own  son  tied  to  the  summit  in  order  to  make 
the  workmen  more  careful.  If  this  ''  Rhamsesis'* 
was  Ramesses  II,  the  loss  of  a son  would  not 
have  been  vital,  as  he  is  known  to  have  had 
over  a hundred,  to  say  nothing  of  several  score 
daughters  ! 


CHAPTER  VIII 


A HISTORY  OF  CERTAIN  OBELISKS  AND 
THEIR  ARCHITECTS 

4 LTHOUGH  the  ancient  records  and  other 
notes  given  in  this  chapter  are  somewhat 
^ -^of  a digression  from  the  main  subject 
of  the  book — the  mechanical  problems  connected 
with  obelisks — they  are  of  interest,  since  they 
give  us  glimpses,  not  only  of  the  curious  history 
of  some  of  the  better-known  obelisks,  but  of  the 
lives  and  characters  of  the  men  who  were 
responsible  for  their  quarrying  and  erection. 
Fortunately,  the  tombs  of  most  of  the  obelisk- 
architects  are  known  to  us,  since  their  efforts 
on  behalf  of  their  kings  were  usually  rewarded 
by  the  present  of  a tomb  in  the  miost  fashionable 
part  of  the  Theban  necropolis,  and  of  a statue 
in  the  temple.  Though  they  were  debarred 
from  putting  the  ancient  version  of  So-and-so 
fecit ''  on  their  obelisks,  they  made  up  for  it 
in  their  tombs  by  recording  with  pride  that  they 
had  put  up  obelisks  for  the  king,  and  they  become 
garrulous  in  recounting  what  good  workmen 
they  were,  and  how  well  they  treated  their 
subordinates,  specially  emphasising  the  rewards 
they  received  and  the  titles  and  decorations 
granted  to  them.  But  they  say  nothing  as  to 
how  they  did  their  job  ; it  sufficed  that  it  was 
done.  This  omission — so  strange  to  our  minds — 

92 


OBELISKS  AND  THEIR  ARCHITECTS  93 

seems  to  me  to  be  due  to  the  fact  that  there 
was  only  one  method  of  putting  up  an  obelisk, 
which  was  well  known.  It  seems  more  than 
likely,  however,  that  full  details  of  each  piece 
of  work  were  kept  for  the  information  and 
guidance  of  scribes. 

The  obelisk  of  Tuthmosis  I,  shown  in  the 
frontispiece,  which,  with  its  now  fallen  fellow, 
stood  before  his  pylon  (No.  IV  at  Karnak),  was 
erected  by  a noble  called  Ineni,  who  also  con- 
structed the  pylon  and  court  of  Osirid  figures 
behind  it,  and  excavated  the  King's  tomb  in  the 
royal  valley.  His  active  life  began  under 
Amenophis  I (see  Appendix  II)  and  continued 
into  the  second  reign  of  Tuthmosis  HI,  when 
in  co-regency  with  Queen  Hatshepsowet.  The 
times  in  which  he  lived  were  prosperous  but 
stormy,  especially  during  the  latter  end  of  his 
career,  when  the  relations  between  Tuthmosis  HI 
and  the  Queen  were  more  than  strained.  Per- 
haps it  is  fortunate  that  he  died  before  the  open 
rupture  took  place,  or  he  might  have  shared, 
with  Sennemut  and  others  of  the  Queen's  party, 
the  hatred  of  Tuthmosis  HI  when  at  length  he 
ruled  alone.  Ineni's  sympathies  clearly  lay 
with  Hatshepsowet.  In  his  tornb  (No.  81  at 
Thebes)  he  gives  quite  an  entertaining  account 
of  his  life.  His  titles  were  : Pasha,  Count,  Chief 
of  all  the  Works  in  Karnak,  Controller  of  the 
Double-houses  of  Silver  and  of  Gold,  Sealer  of 
all  Contracts  in  the  House  of  Amun,  and  Excel- 
lency in  Charge  of  the  Double-Granary.  The 
beginning  of  his  tomb-inscription  is  missing,  but 


94  the  problem  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

he  appears  to  have  been  foreman  on  the  work 
of  Amenophis  I's  gate  to  the  south  of  the 
Karnak  temple  and  of  his  mortuary  temple  on 
the  west  side.  Ineni  tells  us  (c/.  Breasted, 
Ancient  Records,  II,  § 45)  : — 

....  its  doors  were  erected  of  copper  made  in 
one  sheet ; parts  of  them  were  of  electrum.  I inspected 
that  which  His  Majesty  made  . . . (of)  bronze,  Asiatic 
copper — collars,  vessels  and  necklaces.  I was  foreman 
of  every  work  ; all  offices  were  under  my  command.  . . . 
Inspection  was  made  for  me — I was  the  reckoner. 

Describing  the  death  of  the  king,  he  says  : — 

His  Majesty,  having  spent  his  life  in  happiness  and 
the  years  in  peace,  went  forth  to  heaven.  He  joined 
the  Sun ; he  associated  with  Him  and  went  forth. 

Under  Tuthmosis  I,  Ineni  obtained  the  super- 
intendence of  the  king's  building  projects,  and 
he  begins  the  next  part  of  his  story  by  impressing 
on  the  reader  how  thoroughly  Egypt  and  Nubia 
were  under  his  authority.  After  recording  the 
new  king's  kindness  to  hint,  he  says  : — 

I inspected  the  great  monuments  which  he  made  [a 
great  hall]  ; with  great  pylons  on  either  side  of  it 
made  of  fine  Ayan  limestone.  August  flagstaves  were 
erected  at  the  double  fa9ade  of  the  temple,  of  new  fir- 
trees  of  the  best  of  the  Terraces  (Lebanon  ?),  whose 
tips  were  of  electrum  (silver-gold  alloy).  ...  I inspected 
the  putting-up  of  the  great  doorway  called  : Amun- 
Mighty-in- Wealth ; its  huge  door  was  of  Asiatic 
copper,  whereon  was  the  Divine  Shadow,  inlaid  with 
gold.  I inspected  the  erection  of  two  obelisks  . . . 
and  built  the  **  august  ” boat  of  120  cubits  (206-6  feet) 
in  length  and  40  cubits  (68-86  feet)  in  breadth  for 
transporting  these  obelisks.  They  came  in  peace 


OBELISKS  AND  THEIR  ARCHITECTS  95 

safety  and  prosperity,  and  landed  at  Karnak*  . . . 
Its  track  ( ? ) was  laid  with  every  pleasant  wood.  I 
inspected  the  excavations  of  the  cliff-tomb  of  His 
Majesty — no  one  seeing,  no  one  hearing — ...  I made 
fields  of  clay  for  plastering  the  tombs  of  the  Necropolis. 
I was  obliged  to  do  a job  which  the  ancestors  had  not 
had  done.  . . * 

After  again  assuring  us  that  he  was  really 
a first-class  engineer,  and  immensely  popular 
into  the  bargain,  he  records  the  death  of  the 
king,  saying  that  he  ''  rested  from  life,  going 
forth  to  heaven,  having  completed  his  years  in 
gladness  of  heart."' 

Under  Tuthmosis  II,  Ineni  seems  not  to  have 
engaged  in  any  work  of  importance,  and  he  says 
that  he  is  getting  old  ; but  he  records  with  pride 
that  he  was  supplied  with  food  from  the  king's 
own  table  until  Tuthmosis  II  also  died,  or,  as 
Ineni  puts  it,  mingled  with  the  gods." 

During  the  cat-and-dog  life  of  Hatshepsowet 
and  Tuthmosis  III,  the  old  courtier  had  retired 
from  all  active  work,  but  seems  to  have  been  a 
keen  observer  of  the  state  of  the  court.  On 
the  accession  of  the  king  and  queen  he  observes  : 

His  (Tuthmosis  ITs)  son  stood  in  his  place  as  King 
of  Egypt,  having  become  ruler  in  the  place  of  him  who 
begat  him.  His  sister,  the  Divine  Consort,  settled  the 
affairs  of  Egypt  according  to  her  ideas.  . . . 

The  ending  of  Ineni's  inscription  does  not  err 
on  the  side  of  modesty.  He  concludes  thus  : — 

I became  great  beyond  words  ; I will  tell  you  about 
it,  ye  people ; listen  and  do  the  good  that  I did — just 
like  me.  I continued  powerful  in  peace  and  met  with 


96  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

no  misfortune  ; my  years  were  spent  in  gladness.  I 
was  neither  a traitor  nor  a sneak,  and  I did  no  wrong 
whatever.  I was  foreman  of  the  foremen,  and  did  not 
fail.  ...  I never  hesitated,  but  always  obeyed  superior 
orders  . . . and  I never  blasphemed  sacred  things. 

Such  was  the  career  of  Ineni,  whose  inscription, 
when  analysed,  is  of  very  great  irnportance 
historically.  If  he  handled  oriental  labour  for 
some  forty  years  without  blaspheming  it  was 
not  the  least  of  his  achievements. 

The  inscriptions  on  tliis  obelisk  are  like  those 
of  most  other  obelisks,  and  are  merely  the 
elaborate  titulary  of  the  king  and  the  fact  of  the 
dedication  to  the  god.  They  have  no  general 
interest  beyond  giving  the  reign  under  which 
it  was  erected.  Here  the  middle  columns  only 
are  contemporary,  the  side  ones  being  titles  and 
encomiums  added  by  Harnesses  IV  and  VI  some 
four  centuries  later.  As  an  example  of  a dedi- 
cation formula,  the  east  and  west  sides  may  be 
translated  as  follows,  the  north  and  south  sides 
being  only  titles  : — 

(East)  Horus ; Mighty  Bull,  beloved  of  Truth ; 
King  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt ; Favourite  of  the 
Two  Goddesses  ; Shining  with  the  Serpent  Diadem, 
great  in  strength  ; Okheperkere  Setepnere ; Golden 
Horus  ; Beautiful  in  Years,  who  makes  hearts  to  live  ; 
Bodily  son  of  Re,  Tuthmosis  (I),  Shining  in  Beauty. 

He  made  it  as  his  monument  to  his  father  Amun, 
Lord  of  Thebes,  Presider  over  Karnak,  that  he  may 
be  given  life,  like  Re,  eternally. 

(West)  Horus ; Mighty  Bull,  beloved  of  Truth, 
King  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt,  Okheperkere,  Setep- 
Amun. 


OBELISKS  AND  THEIR  ARCHITECTS  97 

He  made  it  as  his  monument  to  his  father  Amen-R^, 
Chief  of  Egypt,  erecting  for  him  two  great  obelisks  at 
the  double-facade  of  the  temple.  The  pyramidions 
are  of  [electrum].  . . . 

When  the  fragments  of  the  companion  obelisk 
were  discovered,  it  was  found  that  they  were 
inscribed,  not  by  Tuthmosis  I,  but  by  Tuth- 
mosis  III.  Ineni  is  quite  clear  about  his  having 
erected  two  obelisks  before  the  pylons.  From 
this  we  deduce  that  after  the  second  obelisk 
had  been  erected,  but  before  it  was  inscribed, 
Tuthmosis  I died.  We  are  therefore  driven  to 
one  of  two  conclusions  : either  that  the  obelisk 
remained  uninscribed  for  some  twenty-three 
years  until  Tuthmosis  III  held  the  throne,  being 
neither  usurped  by  Tuthmosis  II  nor  Hat- 
shepsowet — ^which  is  extremely  improbable — 
or  that  Tuthmosis  III  reigned  for  a certain 
period  before  Tuthmosis  II  ! Strange  as  this 
may  seem,  it  is  borne  out  by  quite  a large  amount 
of  evidence.  The  probable  order  of  the  Tuth- 
mosids  was  somewhat  as  follows  : — 

(1)  Tuthmosis  I either  abdicates  or  is  sup- 
pressed. 

(2)  Tuthmosis  III  reigns  alone,  possibly  as  a 
child,  protected  by  a strong  party. 

(3)  HatshepsoweFs  party  forces  her  upon 
Tuthmosis  III  as  co-regent ; he  may  have 
acquiesced  since,  by  marrying  the  heiress,  he 
would  make  his  title  secure. 

(4)  After  Tuthmosis  III  had  been  on  the 
throne  some  six  years  in  all,  Tuthmosis  I and  II 

7 


98  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

seize  the  throne,  but  are  unable  to  make 
Tuthmosis  HI  relinquish  his  claims  on  it. 

(5)  Tuthmosis  I dies,  and  a co-regency  of 
Tuthmosis  II  and  III  follows,  which  lasts  till 
Tuthmosis  IPs  death  two  years  later. 

(6)  Hatshepsowet  and  Tuthmosis  HI  rule 
together  for  twelve  years,  until  the  former 
either  dies  or  is  forced  to  retire. 

(7)  Tuthmosis  III  rules  alone,  and  cuts  out 
the  names  of  the  queen  and  her  supporters 
wherever  he  finds  them. 

Even  this  complicated  sequence  does  not 
absolutely  explain  all  the  observed  facts,  and  it 
is  still  a matter  of  conjecture  how  such  a state 
of  affairs  arose.  The  successors  of  these  rulers — 
who  seem  to  have  thrived  in  spite  of  the  most 
grotesque  in-breeding — have,  it  seems,  treated 
the  matter  as  a private  affair  and  hushed  it 
up,  recording  the  order  of  each  according  to  the 
period  in  which  he  reigned  longest,  namely, 
Tuthmosis  I,  Tuthmosis  II  and  Tuthmosis  HI. 
Hatshepsowet  is  omitted  as,  though  her  husband 
ruled  through  her,  she  could  not  by  custom 
reign  alone. 

The  above  brief  historical  precis  has  been 
included  to  show  how  a simple  dedicatory 
inscription  may  give  the  key  to  a most  extra- 
ordinary political  situation,  and  to  enable  the 
reader  better  to  understand  the  conditions  under 
which  the  next  four  architects  performed  their 
work. 

HatshepsowePs  standing  obelisk  at  Karnak 
— the  second  largest  survivor — was  erected  by 


OBELISKS  AND  THEIR  ARCHITECTS  99 

Sennemut,  who  was  perhaps  the  staunchest 
supporter  of  the  queen  against  Tuthmosis  III. 
Not  only  did  he  play  an  important  part  in  her 
expedition  to  Punt  (Somahland),  but  he  was 
her  chief  architect  at  Karnak,  Luxor,  Der 
El-Bahari  and  Herrnonthis  (Armant).  So  great 
a favourite  was  he  with  the  queen  that  he, 
together  with  a noble  called  Ahmose-pen-Nekh- 
beyet,  shared  between  them  the  rearing  of  her 
daughter,  the  heiress,  Nefrure.  A further  mark 
of  the  royal  favour  was  that  his  statues  were 
presented  to  him  by  the  queen  and  Tuthmosis 
III — the  latter,  perhaps,  under  compulsion — to 
be  set  up  in  the  temple  of  Karnak.  One  of  the 
statues  of  Sennemut  holding  Nefrure  is  shown  in 
fig.  37.  He  was  even  included  and  mentioned 
by  name  in  the  adoration-scene  of  the  south 
colonnade  at  Der  El-Bahari — a most  unusual 
honour.  HatshepsoweCs  power  seemed  to  rest 
on  Sennemut  and  two  other  nobles  called  Nehsi 

The  Sudanese  and  Dhutiy,  the  last  being  also 
an  expert  in  obelisks.  Their  figures  are  chiselled 
out  at  Der  El-Bahari  and  their  tombs,  especially 
that  of  Sennemut  (No.  71  at  Thebes),  were 
mutilated  by  Tuthmosis  III  after  the  fall  of  the 
queen.  In  contrast  to  Sennemut,  Puimre,  yet 
another  obelisk-maker,  continued  to  work  as 
energetically  for  Tuthmosis  III  in  later  years 
as  for  Hatshepsowet,  for  whom  he  had  made 
an  ebony  shrine.  Can  it  be  that  here  we  have 
an  ancient ''  Vicar  of  Bray  ''  ? Sennemut,  at  any 
rate,  preferred  to  fall  with  his  queen. 

SennemuCs  tomb  is  almost  completely 


100  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 


destroyed,  but  his  statues  give  the  details  of  the 
work  he  did.  Though  Tuthmosis  III  cut  out 
his  name,  he  left  the  inscription  intact.  It  is 
from  here  that  we  learn  that  his  titles  were 
Pasha,  Count,  Royal  Seal-bearer,  Sole  Com- 
panion, Chief  Steward  of  Amun,  Chief  of  the 
Prophets  of  Monthu  in  Armant,  Controller  of 
the  Fields,  Gardens  and  Cattle  of  Amun,  Chief 
Steward  of  the  King  and  Chief  of  the  Peasant- 
serfs.  Though  Hepusonb  (tomb  No.  8i)  was 
Vizier,  there  is  no  doubt  that  Sennemut  was 
the  power  behind  the  throne.  The  inscriptions 
on  his  statues  are  of  the  usual  formal  character 
and  are  hardly  worth  giving  at  length.  On  one 
he  says,  after  recording  the  favour  of  the 

King,'*  as  Hatshepsowet  preferred  to  be 
called : — 

I was  the  greatest  of  the  great  in  the  whole  land  > 
one  who  had  audience  alone  in  the  Privy  Council.  I 
was  the  real  favourite  of  the  King.  ...  I was  foreman 
of  the  foremen ; superior  of  the  great.  ...  I was  one 
to  whom  the  affairs  of  Egypt  were  reported.  That 
which  the  South  and  North  contributed  was  sealed  by 
me ; the  labour  of  all  countries  was  under  my  charge. 

Then  follows  an  appeal  to  all  living  men  upon 
earth,  who  see  his  statue,  to  say  the  usual  prayer 
for  his  ka  or  double,  and  the  inscription  con- 
cludes : — 

I was  a noble  who  was  obeyed ; moreover,  I had 
access  to  all  the  writings  of  the  prophets ; there  was 
nothing  which  I did  not  know  concerning  what  had 
happened  since  the  beginning. 

He  shows  his  knowledge  of  the  classics  by 


Fig.  37.— statue  OF  SENNExMUT,  ARCHITECT  OF  H.ATSHEPSOWET'S 
OBELISKS,  HOLDING  HER  D.\UGHTER  NEFRURE,  TO  WHOM  HE  WAS 
TUTOR. 


OBELISKS  AND  THEIR  ARCHITECTS  loi 


quoting  an  archaic  formula  which  had  long  fallen 
into  disuse. 

His  second  statue,  which  is  that  of  the  illustra- 
tion on  page  loo,  has  a more  condensed  inscrip- 
tion. In  it  he  refers  to  his  tutorship,  and  says 
how  he  entered  into  all  the  wonderful  plans 
of  the  Mistress  of  Egypt.'*  Here,  curiously 
enough,  he  says  that  his  engineering  appoint- 
ment was  due  to  Him,"  although  the  feminine 
pronoun  is  maintained  elsewhere  in  the  inscrip- 
tion for  Hatshepsowet.  Possibly  this  statue  was 
presented  when  his  relations  with  Tuthmosis  III 
were  still  fairly  amicable. 

We  know  nothing  of  Sennemut's  parents 
except  their  names,  which  were  Ramose  and 
Henufer.  His  brother  Senmen,  however,  was  a 
very  influential  and  powerful  noble,  and  his 
tomb  was  also  wrecked  by  Tuthmosis  III. 

Sennemut  has  left  an  inscription  on  the  rocks 
at  Aswan  where  he  appears  adoring  the  queen. 
After  giving  her  titles  and  his  own,  he  records  : — 

. . . Sennemut  came  in  order  to  conduct  the  work 
of  two  great  obelisks  [on  the  feast  of]  A-Myriad-of- 
Years.  It  took  place  according  to  that  which  was 
commanded — everything  was  done — because  of  the 
fame  of  Her  Majesty. 

The  vertical  inscriptions  on  the  great  obelisk 
of  Hatshepsowet  at  Karnak  are  merely  titles  and 
laudatory  phrases,  and  give  no  information  at 
all  of  the  character  of  the  queen  or  the  history 
of  her  times.  The  south,  west  and  north  sides 
give  the  elaborate  titulary,  and  express  the  love 


102  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 


that  the  god  Amen-Re  bore  her.  At  the  end  of 
the  text  on  the  east  face  she  says  : — 

She  repeated  the  action  of  her  father,  Tuthmosis  (I), 
in  erecting  obelisks,  so  that  her  name  might  also  live 
for  ever. 

The  inscriptions  round  the  base  of  the  standing 
obelisk  are  considerably  more  important,  and  are 
now  considered  to  be  the  finest  examples  of  the 
language  of  the  period.  The  following  is  a 
translation  : — 

(South  side)  May  the  Horus  (fern.)  live  . . . (the 
full  titulary  follows)  . . . daughter  of  Amen-Re,  his 
favourite,  his  only  one,  who  exists  through  him,  the 
splendid  part  of  the  All-Lord,  whose  beauty  the  Spirits 
of  Heliopolis  fashioned  ; who  has  taken  the  land  like 

The  Begetter,’'  whom  he  has  created  to  wear  his 
Diadem,  who  exists  like  Khepri  (the  god  of  the  Rising 
Sun)  who  shines  with  crowns  like  “ Him-of-the- 
Horizon  ” ; the  pure  egg,  the  excellent  seed,  whom 
the  two  Sorceresses  (Isis  and  Nephthys)  reared,  whom 
Amun  himself  caused  to  appear  upon  his  throne  in 
Armant,  whom  he  chose  to  protect  Egypt  to  defend 
the  people ; the  Horus,  avenger  of  her  father  (Osiris), 
the  eldest  daughter  of  the  ''  Bull-of-his-Mother  ” (a 
sun-god),  whom  Re  begat  to  make  for  himself  excellent 
seed  upon  earth  for  the  well-being  of  the  people ; his 
living  image.  King  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt,  Makere 
(Hatshepsowet’s  throne-name),  the  “ electrum  ” of 
kings. 

She  made  them  as  her  monument  to  her  father 
Amun,  Lord  of  Thebes,  Presider  over  Karnak,  making 
for  him  two  great  obelisks  of  enduring  granite  from 
the  south ; their  summits  are  of  electrum  of  the  best 
of  every  country,  and  are  seen  on  both  sides  of  the 


OBELISKS  AND  THEIR  ARCHITECTS  103 

river.  Their  rays  flood  the  Two  Lands  when  the  sun 
rises  between  them  as  he  dawns  in  the  horizon  of 
heaven. 

I have  done  this  from  a loving  heart  for  my  father 
Amun,  I have  entered  into  his  scheme  for  his  first 
jubilee ; I was  wise  by  his  excellent  spirit  and  forgot 
nothing  of  that  which  he  exacted.  (West  side.) 
My  Majesty  knows  that  he  is  divine. 

did  it  under  his  command : it  was  he  who 
led  me. 

I conceived  no  works  without  his  doing : it  was 
he  who  gave  me  directions. 

I slept  not  because  of  his  temple : I erred  not 
from  that  which  he  commanded. 

My  heart  was  wise  before  my  father : I entered 
into  the  affairs  of  his  heart. 

I turned  not  my  back  on  the  City  of  The  All- 
Lord  : but  turned  to  it  the  face. 

I know  that  Karnak  is  the  horizon  upon  earth,  the 
August  Ascent  of  the  Beginning,  the  Sacred  Eye  of 
the  All-Lord,  the  place  of  his  heart,  which  wears  his 
beauty,  and  encompasses  those  who  follow  him. 

Thus  saith  the  King  : “I  have  set  it  before  the 
people  who  shall  be  in  after  ages,  and  whose  hearts 
shall  consider  this  monument  which  I made  for  my 
father  (an  obscure  phrase  follows).  ...  I sat  in  the 
palace,  I remembered  him  who  fashioned  me ; my 
heart  led  me  to  make  for  him  two  obelisks  of  electrum 
whose  points  mingled  with  heaven,  in  the  august 
colonnade  between  the  two  great  pylons  of  the  King, 
the  Mighty  Bull,  King  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt, 
Okheperkere  (Tuthmosis  I)  the  deceased  Horus.  . . .** 

O ye  people  (north  side)  who  shall  see  my  monument 

^ The  phrasing  of  these  five  lines,  it  will  be  noticed,  bears  a 
striking  resemblance  to  that  of  the  Psalms. 


104  the  problem  of  THE  OBELISKS 

in  after  years,  those  who  shall  speak  of  that  which  I 
have  made  beware  lest  ye  say,  “ I know  not,  I know 
not  why  this  was  done — a mountain  fashioned  entirely 
from  gold  as  if  it  were  an  everyday  occurrence/*  T 
swear,  as  Re  loves  me,  as  my  father  Amun  favours  me, 
as  my  nostrils  are  filled  with  life,  as  I wear  the  White 
Crown,  as  I appear  in  the  Red  Crown,  as  Homs  and 
Set  have  united  their  halves  in  me,  as  I rule  this  land 
like  the  Son  of  Isis  (i.e,,  Homs),  as  I have  become 
strong  like  the  Son  of  Nut  (Osiris),  as  Re  sets  in  the 
Boat  of  the  Evening,  and  as  He  rises  in  the  Boat  of 
the  Morning,  as  He  joins  his  two  Mothers  (Isis  and 
Nephthys — a confusion  of  the  myths  of  Re  and  Osiris) 
in  the  Divine  Boat,  as  Heaven  abides,  as  that  which 
He  made  endures,  as  I shall  be  unto  eternity  like  an 
Imperishable  Star,  as  I shall  go  down  into  the  west 
like  Atum  (the  god  of  the  Setting  Sun),  so  surely  these 
two  great  obelisks,  which  My  Majesty  hath  wrought 
with  electrum  for  my  father  Amun,  that  my  name  may 
abide  in  this  temple  eternally,  are  of  one  block  of 
enduring  granite  without  seam  or  joining.  . . . My 
Majesty  exacted  work  on  them  from  the  (regnal) 
year  15,  the  first  of  the  sixth  month  (of  the  absolute 
year)  until  the  year  16,  the  last  of  the  twelfth  month, 
making  seven  months  of  exaction  in  the  mountain. 

(East  side)  I did  it  for  him  in  fidelity  of  heart,  as 
a king  to  a god.  It  was  my  desire  to  make  them  for 
him,  gilded  with  electmm.  ...  I thought  how  people 
would  say  that  my  mouth  was  excellent  because  cf 
that  which  came  from  it,  for  I did  not  turn  back  from 
what  I had  said.  Hear  ye  ! I gave  for  them  of  the 
finest  electrum,  which  I had  measured  by  the  heket 

^ Although  previously  she  had  said  that  the  tip  was  of 
electrum,  it  looks  as  if  it  was  completely  overlaid.  This  is 
perhaps  why  she  swears  so  solemnly  that  they  are  of  one  piece, 
as  the  overlaying  might  well  conceal  a joint. 


OBELISKS  AND  THEIR  ARCHITECTS  105 

(5  litres,  or  just  over  a gallon)  like  sacks  of  grain.  In 
quantity,  My  Majesty  gave  more  than  all  Egypt  had 
ever  seen.  The  ignorant,  like  the  wise,  knoweth  it. 

Let  not  him  who  shall  hear  this  say  that  what  I have 
said  is  a lie,  but  rather  let  him  say  : How  like  her 

it  is  who  is  truthful  in  the  sight  of  her  father  ! '' 

The  God  knew  it  in  me,  Amen-Re,  Lord  of  Thebes. 
He  caused  that  I should  reign  over  the  Black  and  the 
Red  land  as  a reward  therefor.  I have  no  enemy  in 
any  land ; all  countries  are  my  subjects.  He  has 
made  my  boundary  to  the  end  of  heaven ; the  circuit 
of  the  Sun  has  laboured  for  me  ...  (an  obscure  phrase 
follows).  ...  I am  in  truth  his  daughter  who  glorifies 
him.  . . . Life,  stability  and  satisfaction  be  upon  the 
Horns  Throne  of  the  Living,  like  Re,  eternally  I 

At  some  period  in  the  history  of  this  obehsk, 
masonry  was  built  all  round  it  right  up  to  the 
roof  of  the  hall.  This  looks  hke  the  work  of 
Tuthmosis  III,  as  the  queen  would  never  have 
covered  up  her  inscription  in  this  way.  The 
difficulty  is  that  the  side  scenes  (see  frontispiece) 
are  unfinished,  only  reaching  from  the  top  to 
about  half-way  down  the  obelisk.  An  accurate 
knowledge  of  the  Tuthmosid  succession  is  neces- 
sary before  the  history  of  the  obehsk  can  be 
fully  understood.  Another  curious  point  is  that 
the  shaft  of  the  fallen  obelisk  had  been  usurped 
by  Tuthmosis  III,  while  in  the  standing  obelisk 
the  queen's  name  is  untouched.  In  the  pedestal 
inscription  of  the  fallen  obelisk,  which  is  in 
fragments,  the  queen  records  that  her  kingdom 
reached  Punt  on  the  south,  the  Asiatic  marshes 
on  the  east,  and  the  legendary  mountains  of 
Manu  on  the  west.  Her  northern  boundary  is  no 


io6  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 


longer  legible.  She  also  recounts  on  it  the 
wonderful  tribute  which  was  remitted  to  Egypt 
in  her  reign. 

Another  obelisk-architect  under  this  queen 
was  one  Dhutiy,  whose  tomb  (No.  ii  at  Thebes) 
has  been  mutilated  by  Tuthmosis  III.  Among 
his  many  titles  were  Director  of  Works  and 
Controller  of  the  Double-houses  of  Silver  and 
Gold.  The  great  work  by  which  he  is  known  is 
the  systematic  recording  of  the  treasures  from 
the  Punt  expedition,  and  he  appears — ^busily 
taking  notes—- in  the  reliefs  in  the  temple  of 
Der  El-Bahari.  As  has  been  remarked,  he  was 
openly  of  the  queen's  party,  and  suffered  in 
consequence.  In  addition  to  his  recording  work, 
he  appears  to  have  made  gateways,  shrines, 
thrones  and  small  furniture  for  the  temple  of 
Karnak,  and  erected  two  great  obelisks  of  io8 
cubits  (i86  feet)  high.  We  have  no  idea  at  all 
as  to  where  these  obelisks  were  placed  ; further, 
it  seems  that  such  a high  obelisk  could  not  with- 
stand its  own  weight  during  its  transport  and 
erection  (p.  76),  unless  it  was  vastly  thicker 
proportionately  than  all  others,  so  it  has  been 
suggested  that  the  length  given  is  the  total 
length  of  the  pair  when  placed  butt  to  butt 
on  the  giant  barge.  It  is  more  likely  that  the 
figure  is  an  error  in  transcription  from  the 
cursive  notes  from  which  the  tomb-inscriptions 
were  copied. 

Puimre,  whose  name  has  already  been  men- 
tioned in  connection  with  Sennemut,  although 
he  had  done  certain  pieces  of  work  for  Queen 


OBELISKS  AND  THEIR  ARCHITECTS  107 

Hatshepsowet,  managed  to  retain  the  favour  of 
Tuthmosis  III  when  he  reigned  alone.  In  his 
tomb  (No.  39  at  Thebes,  lately  restored)  he 
states  that  he  erected  two  obelisks  for  Tuthmosis 
III  at  Karnak.  By  a process  of  elimination,  it 
is  likely  that  they  were  those  which  stood  before 
Pylon  VII  at  Karnak.  Judging  from  the  base 
measurements  of  the  eastern  fragment,  they 
must  have  stood  between  94  and  115  feet  high, 
that  is,  higher  than  the  great  obelisk  of  Hat- 
shepsowet at  Karnak,  and  only  equalled  by  the 
Lateran  obelisk  at  Rome  (pages  30  and  108), 
The  fragments  of  the  companion  obelisk  have 
just  been  unearthed  by  the  Antiquities  Depart- 
ment and  the  foundations  of  the  western  pedestal 
exposed.  Puimre’s  inscriptions  are  of  little 
interest.  He  tells  us  that  he  put  up  the  obelisks 
(though  he  gives  no  measurements),  that  he 
made  a limestone  building  and  an  ebony  shrine, 
and  that  he  recorded  the  tribute  brought  in 
from  Watet-Hor,  probably  a frontier  on  the 
Asiatic  side  of  the  Delta.  His  titles  were  Pasha, 
Count,  Sole  Companion,  Royal  Seal-Bearer  and 
Divine  Father.  A statue  of  him  was  found 
during  the  excavations  in  the  temple  of  Mut  at 
Karnak. 

The  obehsks  of  Tuthmosis  III,  which  were 
placed  before  the  two  which  Ineni  had  erected 
for  Tuthmosis  I,  thus  forming  a compact  little 
group  of  four,  seem  to  have  been  the  work  of 
Menkheperra-sonb,  a name  meaning  something 
like  ''  Here's  to  Tuthmosis  III  ! " These  are 
shown  being  presented  to  Amun  on  a relief  by 


io8  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 


the  side  of  the  sanctuary  of  Karnak,  of  which 
a photograph  is  given  in  fig.  38,  as  the  inscrip- 
tions here  tally  almost  exactly  with  those  still 
visible  on  the  picture  of  the  obelisk  in  his  tomb 
(No.  86  at  Thebes)  and  with  the  fragments  of 
those  lying  between  Pylons  III  and  IV.  His 
father  appears  to  have  been  the  powerful  vizier 
Rekhmire  (tomb  No.  100).  His  statue,  too,  has 
been  found  at  Karnak.  He  was,  among  others, 
Controller  of  the  Silver  House  and  the  Gold 
House,  High  Priest  of  Amun,  and  Director 
General  of  Craftsmen.  In  his  tomb,  he  says 
that  he  made  two  shrines — one  of  a single  block 
of  granite — and  a colonnade.  His  work  in 
connection  with  obelisks  is  recorded  as  follows  : — 

I inspected  when  His  Majesty  erected  obelisks  and 
numerous  flagstaves  for  his  father  Amfin.  I pleased 
His  Majesty  while  conducting  the  work  on  his  monu- 
ments. 

The  largest  standing  obelisk  known  is  that 
which  now  stands  in  front  of  the  church  of 
S.  Giovanni  in  Laterno  at  Rome  (for  dimensions 
see  p.  30).  We  are  not  certain  whether  it  was 
erected  by  Puimre,  Menkheperra-sonb  or  another. 
It  was  made  for  Tuthmosis  III,  but  he  appears 
to  have  died  after  it  had  reached  its  site  and 
before  it  was  erected.  His  grandson,  Tuthmosis 
IV,  piously  engraved  and  erected  it  before 
Pylon  VIII  at  Karnak.  It  never  had  a fellow, 
and  it  is  expressly  stated  that  it  was  the  first 
case  of  a single  obehsk  being  erected.  Tuth- 
mosis IV  put  it  up  in  his  grandfather’s  name, 
adding  his  own  account  of  its  history  on  the  side 


Fig.  38.— king  TUTHMOSIS  III  PRESENTS  OBELISKS,  FLAGSTAVES  AND  BOOTY 
FROM  PALESTINE  TO  THE  GOD  AMEN-RE,  KARNAK. 


V- 


I ^ 


\X 

"4  . 


- tl  • >. 


■ *t- 


OBELISKS  AND  THEIR  ARCHITECTS  109 

columns  of  the  shaft.  Since  the  inscriptions 
are  chiefly  titles  and  encomiums,  it  will  suffice  to 
give  the  relevant  portions  which  refer  to  its 
history.  In  the  centre  inscription  on  the  south 
side  we  read  : — 

Tuthm5sis  (III)  made  it  as  his  monument  to  his 
father  Amen-R^,  Lord  of  Thebes,  erecting  for  him  a 
single  obelisk  in  the  forecourt  of  the  temple  over 
against  Karnak,  as  a first  instance  of  erecting  a single 
obelisk  in  Thebes.  . . . 

Tuthmosis  IV  gives  the  previous  history  on 
the  left  column  of  the  south  side.  After  giving 
his  titles,  etc.,  he  says  : — 

Tuthmosis  (IV).  It  was  His  Majesty  who  beautified 
the  enormous  single  obelisk,  which  was  one  his  father 
{i.e,,  ancestor)  . . . Tuthmosis  III  had  brought,  after 
His  Majesty  had  found  this  obelisk  lying  on  its  side, 
having  passed  35  years  in  the  hands  of  the  craftsmen 
on  the  south  side  of  Karnak.  My  father  commanded 
that  I should  erect  it  for  him,  I,  his  son,  his  saviour. 

Tuthmosis  IV  goes  on,  with  pride,  to  say  that 
he  engraved  it  with  the  name  of  his  father. 
To  our  eyes  it  was  his  bounden  duty,  but  it  is 
certain  that  very  few  kings,  except  perhaps  Seti  I, 
would  have  done  it. 

The  next  thing  we  hear  of  this  obelisk  is  its 
transport  from  Thebes  to  Alexandria  in  A.D.  330 
under  the  reign  of  Constantine  the  Great,  who 
intended  to  send  it  to  Byzantium.  About  A.D. 
357  his  son  Constantins  took  it  to  Rome,  and  set 
it  up  in  the  Circus  Maximus.  In  1587  it  was 
discovered  there  broken  in  three  pieces  and  was 
set  up  at  its  present  site  by  Domenico  Fontana  in 


no  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 

1588.  Whether  it  was  removed  from,  Egypt  in 
a complete  state  or  broken  as  it  is  now  we  have 
no  means  of  knowing. 

The  great  obelisk  at  Constantinople  was  taken 
from  Thebes  to  Alexandria,  it  is  believed,  by 
Constantine  the  Great  (a.d.  306-337),  and  there 
is  a record  that  the  Emperor  Julian  (a.d.  360-363) 
addressed  a letter  to  the  people  of  Alexandria 
urging  them  to  forward  the  shaft  to  its  destina- 
tion and  promising  them  a colossal  statue  of 
himself  in  return.  It  was  erected  in  Constanti- 
nople by  the  Emperor  Theodosius  about  a.d.  390. 
It  originally  stood  in  Karnak,  and  may  well  have 
been  the  work  of  Menkheperra-sonb.  The 
bottom  of  the  shaft  is  missing,  so  that  it  does 
not  stand  at  its  original  height.  Some  have 
supposed  that  it  was  the  top  part  of  the  108-cubit 
obelisks  recorded  by  Dhutiy  (p.  106),  but  those 
were  of  the  time  of  Hatshepsowet,  and  this 
is  clearly  of  Tuthmosis  III.  It  may  be  the 
upper  part  of  one  of  those  which  stood  between 
Pylons  III  and  IV.  Its  inscriptions  are  without 
interest. 

The  ''  Cleopatra’s  Needles  ” at  London  and 
New  York  originally  formed  a pair  in  the  temple 
of  Heliopolis,  and  were  removed  to  Alexandria 
in  13-12  B.c.  by  the  Athenian  (?)  architect 
Pontius.  One  (now  in  London)  apparently  fell 
from  its  pedestal  early  in  the  fourteenth  century. 
The  only  explanation  I can  give  as  to  how  it 
escaped  breaking  is  that  there  was  a considerable 
accumulation  of  sand  around  the  base  and  in  its 
neighbourhood  which  let  it  down  gently.  The 


OBELISKS  AND  THEIR  ARCHITECTS  iii 

inscriptions  on  both  these  obelisks  are  only 
titles  and  laudatory  phrases  and  have  no 
interest  at  all.  They  were  erected  by  Tuthmosis 
III  and  spoilt  by  the  additions,  in  side  columns, 
of  the  titles  of  Harnesses  II.  Their  original 
architect  is  unknown.  Pontius  has,  however, 
left  us  a brief  inscription  on  the  bronze  cramps — 
shaped  like  crabs — ^which  he  inserted  at  each 
broken  corner  to  give  it  additional  support. 
These  inscriptions  in  Greek  and  Latin  read 
(according  to  Breasted)  : — 

h IH  KAI2AP2  ANNO  XVIII  C.ESARIS 

BAPBAPOS  ANE0HKE  BARBARVS  FRJEF 

APXITEKTON  OYNTOS  iEGYPTI  POSVIT 

nONTIor  ARCHITECTANTE  PONTIO 

The  history  of  their  erections  in  New  York 
and  London  is  given  on  pages  117  and  121. 

The  Arab  writer  'Abd  El-Latif,  in  about  a.d. 
1190,  when  he  visited  Heliopolis,  saw  two  great 
obelisks  there,  one  standing  and  the  other  lying 
broken.  Less  than  three  centuries  earlier  both 
are  reported  to  have  been  standing,  adorned 
with  their  copper  caps.  For  many  centuries  the 
second  obelisk  has  been  missing,  the  only  one 
remaining  being  that  of  Senusret  I,  of  which  a 
photograph  is  shown  in  fig.  2,  p.  18.  While  I 
was  excavating  there  for  the  British  School 
of  Archaeology  in  1912,  under  Prof.  Flinders 
Petrie,  we  found  fragments  of  the  second 
obelisk  quite  close  to  it  under  the  cultivation. 
The  second  obelisk  was  not  of  the  Xllth  dynasty, 
but  of  Tuthmosis  III.  These  fragments  have 
been  arranged  round  the  pedestal  of  the  standing 


II2  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 


obelisk.  (See  Petrie,  Heliopolis,  Kafr  Ammar 
and  Shurafa.)  Gorringe,  in  his  Egyptian  Obelisks, 
gives  all  the  accounts  of  mediaeval  authors  on 
the  subject  of  the  obelisks  of  Heliopolis. 

During  the  XIXth  dynasty  our  records  about 
obelisks  and  their  architects  are  fewer,  though 
we  know  that  many  of  them  were  erected.  That 
in  front  of  the  Temple  of  Luxor,  shown  in  fig.  39, 
whose  fellow  is  now  in  the  Place  de  la  Concorde, 
Paris,  was  erected  by  a man  called  Beknek- 
honsu,  whose  tomb  (No.  35  at  Thebes)  and  whose 
statue,  now  at  the  Glyptothek,  Munich,  give  us 
a great  deal  of  information  about  his  career. 
His  autobiography  is  so  clear  that  it  can  be  given 
almost  verbatim  : — 

The  Pasha,  Count,  High  Priest  of  Amun,  Beknek- 
honsu  says  : I was  a truthful  witness,  profitable  to  his 
lord,  extolling  the  instruction  of  his  god  . . . and 
performing  the  ceremonies  in  his  temple.  I was 
Chief  Overseer  of  Works  in  the  House  of  Amun,  satis- 
fying the  excellent  heart  of  his  lord. 

O all  ye  people,  take  heed  in  your  hearts ; ye  who 
are  on  earth  who  shall  come  after  me  through  millions 
and  millions  of  years.  ...  I will  inform  you  of  my 
character  while  I was  on  earth,  in  every  office  which  I 
administered  since  my  birth. 

I passed  four  years  as  an  infant. 

I passed  12  years  as  a youth,  being  chief  of  the 
training  stable  of  King  Menmire  (Seti  I). 

I acted  as  priest  of  Amun  for  4 years. 

I acted  as  Divine  Father  for  12  years. 

I acted  as  third  prophet  of  Amun  for  15  years. 

I acted  second  prophet  of  Amun  for  12  years. 

He  favoured  me  and  distinguished  me  because  of  my 


Fig.  39.— obelisk  OF  RAMESSES  II,  TEMPLE  OF  LUXOR. 
(Its  fellow  is  now  at  the  Place  de  la  Concorde,  Paris.) 


112] 


^ £ 


•| 


} 

u- 


OBELISKS  AND  THEIR  ARCHITECTS^iiS 

rare  talent,  and  appointed  me  High  Priest  of  Amhn  for 
27  years. 

I was  a good  father  to  my  serf-labourers,  training 
their  classes,  giving  a hand  to  him  who  was  in  trouble 
and  preserving  alive  him  who  had  met  with  misfor- 
tune. ...  I was  Chief  Overseer  of  Works  in  Thebes 
for  his  (Seti’s)  son,  Harnesses  (II),  who  made  monuments 
for  his  father  Amun,  who  had  placed  him  on  the  throne. 

I made  for  him  a temple  called  : Ramesses-Meriamun- 
is-a-Hearer-of-Petitions,  at  the  upper  portal  of  the 
House  of  Amun.  I erected  obelisks  of  granite  therein, 
whose  beauty  approached  heaven.  A stone  wall  was 
before  it  over  against  Thebes.  I made  very  great 
doors  of  electrum.  ...  I hewed  very  great  flagstaves 
and  I erected  them  in  the  august  forecourt  before  the 
temple. 

A contemporary  sculpture  of  the  pylon,  with 
its  obelisks  and  flagstaves,  is  shown  in  fig.  40. 
Beknekhonsu  concludes  : — 

I made  great  barges  ...  for  Amun,  Mht  and 
Khonsu  (the  Theban  triad)  ; I,  the  Pasha  and  High 
Priest  of  Amun,  Beknekhonsu. 

An  account  of  the  removal  in  modern  times 
of  the  missing  obelisk  is  given  on  page  116.  It 
is  a curious  fact  that  the  two  were  not  exactly 
of  the  same  height. 

It  must  not  be  imagined  that  obelisks  were 
made  almost  exclusively  in  the  XVIIIth  and 
XIXth  dynasties.  In  Rome  and  elsewhe  e 
there  are  obelisks  and  fragments  of  obelisks  of 
many  other  kings,  including  Psammetikhos, 
Hophra,  and  even  the  Roman  emperors  Hadrian 
and  Domitian. 


8 


CHAPTER  IX 


REMOVALS  OF  OBELISKS  IN  MODERN 

TIMES 

" THOUGH  the  removals  of  obelisks  from 


Egypt  in  recent  times  give  us  very  little 


information  which  might  help  us  to  under- 
stand the  methods  of  the  ancients,  a brief 
account  of  them  is  of  interest  if  only  for  the 
contrast ; it  makes  us  appreciate  the  work  of 
the  Egyptians  the  more,  especially  when  we 
bear  in  mind  that  every  method  used  in  modern 
days  for  the  lowering  and  erection  of  an  obelisk 
—which  has  never  exceeded  331  tons  in  weight — 
always  taxed  the  strength  of  the  tackle  to  the 
utmost ; in  each  case  it  was  only  just  strong 
enough.  Every  modern  removal  has  been  a 
nine  days'  wonder,  and  a ponderous  tome  has 
appeared  about  it,  yet  the  Egyptians,  we  know 
for  a fact,  set  up  obelisks  of  over  550  tons,  and — 
if  we  are  to  believe  their  records — of  more  than 
800  tons,  without  troubling  to  put  on  record 
how  they  did  it. 

The  obelisks  which  we  will  deal  with  here  are 
now  known  as  the  Vatican,  the  Paris,  the  London 
and  the  New  York  obelisks.  The  countries 
of  the  last  two  both  claim  their  own  to  be  the 
one  and  original  ''  Cleopatra's  Needle,"  though 
why  they  should  be  so  keen  on  this  title  I cannot 
imagine,  since  they  were  both  made  by  Tuth- 
mosis  III  some  14  centuries  earlier. 


REMOVALS  OF  OBELISKS  115 

The  Vatican  obelisk  had  been  taken  from 
Egypt  in  Roman  times,  and  it  was  moved  in 
A.D.  1586  by  Domenico  Fontana  from  the  Circus 
of  Nero  at  Rome  to  the  Piazza  di  San  Pietro, 
where  it  now  stands,  incongruously  decorated 
— ^like  most  of  the  other  obelisks  in  Italy — with 
a brazen  cross.  The  removal  was  performed  by 
order  of  Pope  Sixtus  V.  The  method  used  was 
the  heroic  one  of  hfting  it  bodily  by  systems  of 
pulleys  actuated  by  a large  number  of  capstans. 
The  pulleys  were  slung  from  a gigantic  tower  of 
wood,  popularly  known  as  Fontana's  Castle," 
which  was  made  of  compound  wooden  baulks 
over  a yard  square  in  section.  The  pulleys 
were  attached  to  the  obelisk  at  four  points  along 
its  length,  the  inscriptions  being  protected  by 
matting  and  planks.  The  obelisk  was  first 
raised  sufficiently  high,  being  wedged  at  the  same 
time  from  below,  to  enable  a ''  cradle,"  or  plat- 
form on  rollers,  to  be  introduced  underneath  it. 
It  was  then  lowered  on  to  the  cradle  and  pulled 
to  its  new  site,  first  down  an  inclined  plane  and 
thence  on  level  ground.  The  erecting  was  per- 
formed in  exactly  the  reverse  manner  to  the 
lowering.  The  whole  story,  as  translated  by 
Lebas  in  his  UObelisque  de  Louxor,  is  distinctly 
diverting,  and  I cannot  resist  giving  two  extracts. 
He  tells  us  (p.  178)  : " Public  curiosity  . . . 
attracted  a large  number  of  strangers  to  Rome, 
and  a hando  of  the  Pope,  published  two  days 
before,  punished  by  death  anybody  who  did  not 
respect  the  barrier.  ...  On  the  30th  April, 
two  hours  before  daylight,  two  masses  were 


ii6  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 


celebrated  to  implore  the  light  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Fontana,  with  all  his  staff,  communicated.  . . . 
On  the  eve  of  the  lowering  he  had  been  blessed 
by  the  Holy  Father.  . . Before  the  work 
began  Fontana  told  his  workmen  : The  work 

we  are  about  to  undertake  is  consecrated  to 
religion,  the  exaltation  of  the  Holy  Cross ; 
thereon  everyone  recited  v/ith  Fontana  a Pater 
and  an  A ve.  The  ceremony  was  made  interesting 
for  the  spectators  by  the  presence  of  some 
''  familiars of  the  Church,  whose  duty  it  was 
to  administer  summary  punishment  to  anyone 
who  misbehaved.  Absolute  silence  for  work- 
men and  spectators  was  ordered,  and  the  story 
is  still  told  of  a workman  who  disregarded  the 
order  at  a critical  moment,  when  the  ropes  had 
become  slack  and  could  be  tightened  no  further. 
He  cried  : Wet  the  ropes  ! — which  was  done, 

and  the  situation  saved.  For  his  initiative  he 
is  said  to  have  had  an  annuity  granted  to  him- 
self and  his  descendants  by  the  Pope. 

The  removal  of  the  obelisk  from  Luxor 
Temple  to  the  Place  de  la  Concorde  in  Paris  is 
perhaps  the  worst  of  these  gross  acts  of  van- 
dalism, since  the  Luxor  obelisks  were  the  only 
pair  still  standing  in  their  original  position.  It 
was  done  by  an  engineer  called  Lebas  in  1836. 
The  obelisk  was  lowered  and  raised  by  means 
of  a huge  compound  sheers,  consisting  of  five 
members,  or  struts,  on  each  side  of  it.  The 
power  was  supplied  by  systems  of  pulleys 
worked  by  capstans.  The  model  shown  in 
fig.  41  makes  this  method  clear  as  regards  the 


Fig.  41.—MODKI.  SHOWING  HOW  THE  PARTS  (')BEL1SK  WAS  LOWERED  AND 

ERECTED. 

( Page  I T S. ) 


Fig.  42.— model  TO  SHOW  HOW  THE  LOWERING  AND  THE  R.MSING  OF  THE  NEW 
YORK  OBELISK  WERE  PERFORMED. 

(Page  1 1 7.) 


116] 


i 


: 


- • !<  ■ 
•T  -ti 


; 


REMOVALS  OF  OBELISKS 


117 

appearance  and  position  of  the  sheers,  and  the 
way  in  which  the  obelisk  was  slung  from  them, 
but  only  one  capstan  and  system  of  pulleys  is 
shown  here.  The  obelisk  was  lowered  on  to  a 
wooden  cradle,  on  which  it  was  dragged  over  a 
greased  way,  without  rollers,  to  the  Nile. 
There  a pontoon-raft,  with  its  prow  temporarily 
removed,  was  waiting  to  receive  it.  The  raft 
was  towed  home,  the  prow  again  removed 
and  the  obelisk  dragged  to  the  Place  de  la 
Concorde  on  its  cradle,  being  finally  brought 
up  a slope  leading  up  to  the  surface  of  the 
high  pedestal  on  which  it  was  to  be  erected. 
Though  the  obehsk  weighed  but  227  tons,  it 
took  a puU  of  94  tons  from  the  capstans  to 
move  it  up  the  gradual  incline.  The  edge  of 
the  obelisk  was  made  to  rest  over  the  pedestal- 
notch,  in  which  it  engaged  as  it  rose  towards 
the  vertical.  Lebas’s  book,  which  is  now  very 
rare,  is  extremely  interesting,  giving  many 
dehghtful  sketches  of  some  of  the  ludicrous 
situations  met  with  in  the  course  of  the  work, 
and  of  the  cheery  way  in  which  the  party  over- 
came their  difficulties,  which  ranged  from  an 
epidemic  of  plague  to  a shortage  of  wood. 

The  New  York  obelisk  originally  formed  a 
pair  with  the  London  obelisk  in  a temple  at 
Heliopolis,  near  Cairo,  and  both  had  been 
moved  in  Roman  times  to  Alexandria,  close  to 
the  beach  (see  p.  no).  The  English  took  the 
one  which  was  lying  in  the  sand,  leaving  the 
Americans  the  other,  which  was  standing  on 
its  pedestal.  At  an  earlier  stage  of  its  history 


ii8  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 


all  four  edges  had  been  broken  away,  and  four 
copper  cramps — shaped  like  sea-crabs — had  been 
put  at  the  corners  to  support  it  more  firnily. 
In  modern  times  only  two  of  the  crabs  remained, 
the  others  having  been  stolen  and  blocks  of 
stone  put  in  their  stead.  The  method  of  lower- 
ing the  obelisk  was  ingenious  in  the  extreme. 
The  obelisk  was  first  fitted  with  a pair  of  huge 
steel  trunnions  (similar  to  those  seen  on  a toy 
cannon  by  means  of  which  it  can  pivot  around 
its  centre).  The  trunnions  were  left  loose  until 
two  steel  towers  had  been  constructed  on  either 
side  of  the  obelisk,  as  shown  in  the  model  in 
fig.  42,  to  act  as  a support  for  them.  A strong 
steel  plate  was  passed  under  the  butt  of  the 
obelisk  and  attached  by  a series  of  stout  steel 
bars  or ''  tension-rods,’'  which  could  be  shortened 
by  screwing.  Whether  there  was  originally  a 
space  below  the  centre  of  the  butt,  or  whether 
the  obelisk  was  raised  by  jacks  or  rams  placed 
under  the  four  rounded-off  corners,  I am  uncer- 
tain. (The  plate  and  the  tension-rods  can  best 
be  seen  in  fig.  43.)  The  tension-rods  were 
shortened  by  screwing,  and  the  obelisk  thus 
pulled  clear  off  its  pedestal,  being  supported 
by,  and  sliding  through,  the  trunnion.  The 
trunnion,  which  was  arranged  to  be  at  the 
balancing-point  of  the  obehsk  when  it  was 
sufficiently  high,  was  next  bolted  tight  and  the 
obelisk  itself  braced  by  long  rods,  passing,  as 
shown  in  the  model,  over  a stiff  support  at  its 
centre.  From  this  position  it  was  intended  to 
let  the  point  of  the  obelisk  come  slowly  round 


Fig.  43. --lowering  OF  THE  NEW  YORK  OBELISK.  TOWERS  AND  TRUNNIONS 
ABOUT  TO  BE  REMOVED. 

(Page  1 18.) 


Fig.  44.  -LOWERING  OF  THE  NEW  YORK  OBELISK.  REMOVING  THE  WOODEN 
BAULKS  FROM  EACH  END  ALTERN.ATELY. 

(Page  ng.) 


i83 


■ > 


1 


( 

i 

‘ - i 

; ■ ■■'  ^ 


/ 

I 


■ ■ I ‘i 


>-' 

'3 


REMOVALS  OF  OBELISKS 


119 

until  it  rested  on  a crib  of  wooden  baulks  (seen 
to  the  left  in  fig.  42).  What  actually  happened 
was  that,  owing  to  a miscalculation  of  the 
balancing-point,  the  tip  crashed  down,  breaking 
the  holding-back  ropes.  It  splintered  about 
three  courses  of  baulks  and  escaped  breaking 
by  a miracle.  Another  crib  of  baulks  was  next 
built  below  the  butt,  as  shown  in  fig.  43.  The 
next  step  was  to  remove  the  towers  and  the 
trunnions  ; this  was  done  by  taking  the  weight 
of  the  obelisk  off  them  by  raising  the  point  by 
oil-rams  placed  within  the  wooden  crib.  For 
those  unacquainted  with  ram,s,  it  may  be 
explained  that  they  are  appliances  by  which  a 
great  lifting  force  can  be  obtained  for  a short 
distance  by  means  of  oil  compressed  into  them 
by  a pump.  A jack,''  which  enables  one  man 
to  lift  up  the  back  of  a heavy  motor,  has  a 
similar  function.  In  the  model  shown,  the 
jack  is  actuated  by  hand  through  a bowden 
wire.  Fig.  43  shows  the  weight  of  the  obelisk 
being  taken  by  the  ram,  so  that  the  towers  and 
trunnions  can  be  removed.  This  being  done, 
the  rams  are  released  and  the  obelisk  comes 
down  on  to  the  crib.  The  rams  are  then  used 
from  each  crib  in  turn,  lifting  the  tip  or  butt 
so  that  a course  of  baulks  can  be  removed  and 
the  obelisk  gently  lowered  on  to  the  course 
below.  Fig.  44  shows  the  obelisk  when  it  has 
nearly  arrived  at  the  ground. 

It  had  originally  been  intended  to  convey  the 
obelisk  through  the  streets  of  Alexandria  to  the 
harbour,  but  the  inhabitants,  especially  the 


120  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 


European  community,  who  had  opposed  the 
removal  strenuously,  influenced  the  Municipal 
Council  to  forbid  this.  A special  wooden  slide 
had  therefore  to  be  constructed  so  that  the 
obelisk,  which  was  to  be  put  in  a wooden 
caisson,  could  be  pulled  down  it  to  the  sea,  and 
floated  round  to  the  harbour  instead.  At  the 
harbour  it  was  introduced  into  a steamship 
called  the  Dessoug,  by  opening  a port  in  her 
bows.  The  journey  to  America  was  compara- 
tively uneventful,  and  between  the  harbour  and 
Central  Park  it  did  the  longer  journeys  by  rail 
and  the  shorter  journeys  rolling  on  cannon-balls 
running  in  U-shaped  " channel-irons  ; t.^., 

cannon-balls  were  used  as  ball-bearings  ! At 
Central  Park  the  erection  was  performed,  with 
elaborate  ceremonial,  under  the  auspices  of  the 
Freemasons. 

The  method  of  erection  was  exactly  the 
reverse  of  that  used  for  the  lowering,  and  it 
was  carried  out  without  a hitch  on  January  22, 
1881,  or  just  about  2J  years  after  the  London 
obelisk  was  set  up.  The  work  done  was  under 
the  direction  of  Lt.-Commander  H.  H.  Gorringe, 
U.S.  Navy. 

Those  who  desire  a complete  account  of  al 
the  removals  of  obelisks  in  mediaeval  and 
modern  times  cannot  do  better  than  consult 
Gorringe,  Egyptian  Obelisks,  from  which  much 
of  the  information  in  this  chapter  has  been 
taken.  This  book  was  published  to  celebrate 
the  erection  of  the  New  York  obelisk,  and  will 
form  a most  excellent  textbook  for  future 


REMOVALS  OF  OBELISKS  121 

removals,  in  case  it  is  decided  to  present  the 
remaining  Egyptian  obelisks  to  Yugo-Slovakia, 
Liberia  and  the  like.  The  question  of  transport 
is  the  book's  real  drawback,  as  its  size  almost 
demands  a sled  and  rollers ! 

The  London  obelisk  had  only  to  be  trans- 
ported and  erected,  since  it  was  already  lying 
unbroken  in  the  sand  at  Alexandria.  The 
principle  of  the  erecting  process  was  the  same 
as  that  used  for  the  New  York  obelisk,  except 
that,  instead  of  the  trunnions,  steel  shoulders 
with  ‘‘  knife-edge  " bearing  surfaces  were  used. 
These  engaged  in  a huge  wooden  scaffolding 
instead  of  on  the  two  steel  towers.  For  trans- 
porting it  by  water  it  was  enclosed  in  a steel 
shell,  fitted,  like  a ship,  with  deck  and  mast. 
It  even  had  watertight  compartments.  The 
ship  " was  named  the  Cleopatra,  and  she  set 
out  from  Egypt  on  the  21st  of  September,  1877. 
She  steered  very  badly,  and  in  a gale  near 
Cape  St.  Vincent  the  steamship  Olga,  which 
was  towing  her  home,  had  to  cut  the  august 
barge  ” adrift.  Six  sailors,  who  tried  to  reach 
the  Cleopatra  to  secure  her  ballast,  perished  in 
the  heavy  sea.  The  Olga  then  lost  the  Cleo- 
patra, and,  imagining  she  had  foundered,  she 
steamed  home.  The  Cleopatra,  however,  had  not 
foundered  at  all,  and  was  salved  by  a ship  called 
the  Fitzmaurice,  who  towed  her  into  Ferrol.  A 
claim  for  £5,000  salvage  was  reduced  by  the 
Admiralty  Courts  to  £2,000.  Having  arrived 
in  the  Thames  on  January  20th,  1878,  the 
obelisk  was  brought  right  up  beside  the  site  on 


122  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  OBELISKS 


the  Thames  Embankment  where  it  now  stands, 
being  grounded  at  high  tide.  After  the  shell 
had  been  cut  away,  the  lifting  on  to  the  Embank- 
ment was  done  almost  entirely  by  hydraulic 
jacks. 

At  its  erection,  which  took  place  in  September, 
1878,  an  extraordinary  collection  of  objects  was 
put  in  the  base  of  this  obelisk,  which  ranged 
from  sets  of  coinage,  newspapers  and  standard 
works,  to  a Mappings  shilling  razor,  an  Alexandra 
feeding-bottle,  a case  of  cigars  and  photographs 
of  a dozen  pretty  Englishwomen  for  the  benefit 
of  posterity ! 

What  would  the  feelings  of  Tuthmosis  III 
have  been  when  he  ordered  these  obelisks  for 
the  god  Re,  had  he  known  that  one  would  be 
taken  to  a land  of  whose  existence  he  never 
dreamed,  and  that  the  other  would  fall  into  the 
hands  of  what  was  then  a savage  people,  and, 
after  undergoing  such  vicissitudes  as  shipwreck 
and  injuries  from  a German  air-bomb,  would 
still  be  standing,  though  thousands  of  miles 
away,  after  a lapse  of  nearly  3,500  years  ? 


APPENDIX  I 

Dates  of  Egyptian  Kings  Mentioned  in  the 
Volume 

Although  the  dates  of  the  kings  of  the  XVIIIth 
dynasty  and  onwards  are  known  with  great  accuracy, 
there  is  a difference  of  opinion  among  scholars  as  to 
the  dates  of  the  kings  between  the  1st  and  the  Xllth 
dynasties,  which  depends  on  whether  the  dark  period 
between  the  Xllth  and  XVIIIth  dynasties — ^which 
includes  the  Hyksos  invaders — ^was  long  or  short. 
Both  the  “ long  dating  ” and  the  “ short  dating 
are  given  here. 

XIxH  Dynasty 


Menthuhotpe  IV  (?) 

L.D. 

. . 3592 

B.C.  S.D. 

2002 

XIIth  Dynasty  (Complete) 
(Amenemhet  I . . . . . . . . 2778 

2000) 

Senusret  I 

. . 2758 

1980 

(Amenemhet  II  . . 

. . 2716 

1938) 

(Senusret  II 

. . 2684 

1906) 

(Senusret  III 

. , 2660 

1887) 

Amenemhet  III . . 

. . 2622 

1849 

(Amenemhet  IV  . . 

• • 2758 

1801) 

(Sebeknefrure 

. . 2569 

1792) 

123 


124  APPENDIX 

XVIIIth  Dynasty  (Complete) 

(Ahmose  I,  “ Amasis  ” I . . . . . . 1580-1557) 

Amenophis  I . . . . . . . . . . 

Tuthmosis  I )i557-i50l 

Tuthmosis  II  . . . . . . . . . . >v 

Tuthmosis  III  and  Hatshepsowet  ..  j^50i*"^447 

Amenophis  II..  ..  ..  ..  ..  1447-1420 

Tuthmosis  IV. . . . . . . . . . 1420-1411 

Amenophis  III  ..  ..  ..  ..  1411-1375 

Amenophis  IV,  the  heretic  King  Akhenaten  . 

Sakere  . . . . . . . . . . . . I 

Tutankhamun  . . . . . . . . j ^375~i35o 

Ay  (Eye)  . . . . . . . . . . ^ 

XIXth  Dynasty  (Complete) 

Haremhab  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  1350-1315 

Ramesses  I ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  1315-1314 

Seti  I . . . . . . . . . . . . 1313-1292 

Ramesses  II  . . . . . . . . . . 1292-1225 

(Merneptah  . . . . . . . . . . 1225-12 15) 

(Amenmose  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  1215) 

(Siptah  . . . . . . . . . . . . 1215-1209) 

Seti  II  . . . . . . . . . . 1209-1205 

XXth  Dynasty 

Ramesses  IV  . . ..  ..  ..  ..  1167-1161 

Ramesses  VI  . . ..  ..  ..  ..  1157-1142 

XXVIth  Dynasty 

Psammetikhos  II  . . . . . . . . 593-588 

Hophra  . . . . . . . . . . 588-569 

Amasis  II  . . . . . . . . . . 569-525 

Ptolemaic 

Ptolemy  II,  Philadelphus  . . . . . . 286-247 


APPENDIX  II 

Vocalisations  of  Egyptian  Words. 

The  following  variations  in  the  transcription  of 
ancient  Egyptian  and  other  names  and  words  have 
been  given  to  mitigate  the  sufferings  of  the  general 
reader,  who  is  appalled  and  annoyed  by  the  great 
diversity  of  ways  in  which  the  ancient  words  are  spelt, 
not  only  in  the  guide-books  but  in  technical  publica- 
tions. As  it  has  been  noted  in  the  preface,  the  method 
followed  here  has  been  to  retain  the  Greek  form  if 
there  are  many  variations  and  it  seems  passably  close 
to  the  ancient  pronunciation,  otherwise  to  attempt  to 
reconstruct  its  pronunciation  in  accordance  with  recent 
researches.  This  is  the  method  used  by  the  English 
philological  school,  as  a supplement  to  the  consonantal 
skeletons  in  use  for  all  grammatical  work  throughout 
Europe  and  America. 

The  diacritical  marks  to  show  the  different  s's, 
etc.,  have  been  omitted. 

Key  ; — R. — Reconstructions. 

G. — Greek  forms. 

X. — No  data  for  vowels. 

O. — Old  style,  which  represents  the  ancient  conso* 
nants  and  semi-vowels  by  a,  a,  a,  u.  If  the 
word  is  still  unpronounceable  an  e is  added  at 
any  convenient  place. 

Those  unmarked  can  mostly  be  proved  incorrect. 

125 


APPENDIX. 


126 

*Alim6se 
‘Ahm6se-pen-Nekhbeyet  (R.) 
AmenemhSt  (R.) 
Amenem6pet  (R.)  • . 
Amenfiphis  (G.) 

Amen-R§*  (R.) 

Amun  (R.)  •. 

(This  becomes  **  Amen- 


Amasis  (G.)  ; Amosis  (G.) ; 
Aahmes. 

Ahmose  - pen  - nekhbet  (R.)  I 
Aahmes-pen-nekhbet. 
Amenemmes  (G.) ; Amenemhat 
(O.). 

Amenemapt  (O.) ; Amenappa 
(from  cuneiform). 

Amenothes  (G.)  ; Amenophthis 
(G.)  ; Amenhotpe  (R.)  ; 
Amenhotep  (R.)  ; Amenhe- 
tep  (O.). 

Amunre  (R.) ; Amen-Ra  (O.)  ; 
Ammon-Ra. 

Amon  (R.)  ; Ammon  (G.)  ; 
Amen  (O.)  ; Amoun  (Copt), 
when  unaccented.) 


Asw&n  (modern  use) 

Aten  (X.)  ..  , , 

Beknekhonsu  (R.) 

Dhuthotpe  (R.) 

^Dhutiy  (R.) . . 

Haremhab  (R.) 

Hatshepsdwet  (R.) 


Hepusonb  (R.) 

Ineni  (R.X.) 

Khepri  (X.) 

Makers*  (R.) 

Menkheperra*-sonb  (R.)  . . 

MenmirS*  (R.)  . . . . 

Menthuhotpe  (R.)  . . 


Syene  (G.) ; Assouan  (Fr.)  ; 
Asswan. 

Aton  (X.)  ; Adon  (X.). 
Bakenkhonsu  (O.)  ; Bekenk- 
hensu  (O.). 

Dhuthotep  (R.)  ; Thuthotep 
(R.)  ; Tehutihetep  (O.). 
Thutiy  (R.)  ; Tehuty  (O.)  I 
Tahuti,  &c. 

Harmhab  (R.)  ; Haremheb  (R.) ; 
Harmhabi  (R.)  ; Horemheb  ; 
(H)armais  (G.). 

Hatshepsuit  (R.)  ; Hatshepsut 
(O.)  ; Hatshepsu,  Hatshop- 
situ,  Chnemtamon,  Hatasoo. 
Hapusenb  (O.)  ; Hepuseneb  (R.)» 
Anena  (O.X.)  ; Anna. 

Khepera  (O.) ; Khepra  (O.),  and 
others. 

Maat-ka-Ra  (O.)  ; Ra-Maat-Ka. 
Menkheperraseneb  (R.). 
Men-Maat-Ra  (O.)  ; Ra-Maat- 
Men ; Ra-men-Maat. 
Menthuhotep  (R.)  ; Mentuhetep 
(O.) ; Menthuhetep  (O.). 


* It  is  quite  likely  that  the  D was  pronounced  T in  the  New 

Kingdom,  but  the  D is  the  more  usually  used  transliteration. 


APPENDIX 


127 


Monthu  (R.) 


Nefrure'  (R.) . . 
*Okheperkerd‘  (R.)  . . 

Psammetikhos  (G.) 

Ra*-  (unaccented)  . , 
Ramesses  (G.) 

Ra*m6se  (R.) 

Rekhmir^*  (R.) 

R6*  (in  accented  syllables) 
Sennemut  (R.) 

Seti  (O.) 

Tut‘ankhamlln  (R.) 


Tuthmdsis  (G.) 


Menthu  (O.)  ; (Her)  month  (is) 
(G.)  ; (Er)-mont  (Copt)  ; (Ar)- 
mant  (Arab). 

Neferu-Ra  (O.).  __ 

Aa-Kheper-Ka-Ra ; Ra-Aa- 
Kheper-Ka. 

Psamthek  (R.) ; Psamtek  (O.) ; 
&c. 

Ri. 

Ramses  (R.)  ; Ramessu  (O.)  ; 
Rameses  (O.)  ; Rhamsesis 
(G.)  ; Ramsasa,  &c. 

Rames  (O.). 

Rakhmire  (R.)  ; Rekhmara  (O.). 

Ra  (O.)  ; Re  (Copt). 

Senemut  (R.)  ; Senmut  (O.), 

Sethos  (G). ; Sethoy  (R.) ; Sety 
(O.). 

Tutenkhamon  (R.) ; Tutankh- 
amen (O.),  and  many  other 
versions,  some  frivolous. 

Thutmose  (R.)  ; Dhutmose 
(R.) ; Tahutimes  ; Thothmes; 
Thutmosis. 


INDEX 

(For  various  methods  of  transcribing  Egyptian  names, 
see  Appendix  II) 

Abandoning  Aswan  obelisk,  reasons  of,  22,  29. 

‘Abd  El-Latif,  20,  iii. 

Abusir,  sun-obelisks  of,  18. 

Accuracy  of  work  in  obelisks,  81. 

Amasis  II,  transport  under,  88. 

Amenemhet  III,  expedition  of,  85. 

Amenophis  II,  small  obelisk  of,  79. 

Amenophis  III,  barge  of,  79. 

— colonnades  of,  82. 

Anastasi  Papyrus  I,  70,  87,  89. 

Architects,  historical  notes  on  : 

— Beknekhonsu,  112. 

— Dhutiy,  106. 

— Fontana,  Domenico,  109,  115. 

— Gorringe,  Lt.-Commr.  H.  H.,  120. 

— Ineni,  93. 

— Lebas,  116. 

— • Menkheperra-sonb,  107,  no. 

— Pontius,  III. 

— Puimre,  99,  106, 

— Sennemut,  22,  99. 

Assurbanipal  II,  17. 

Aswan  obelisk : 

— description  of,  25. 

— dimensions  of,  25,  30. 

— extraction  of,  41. 

— quarry-face  near,  26,  43,  46. 

— trench  round,  41. 

Balls  of  dolerite  (see  “ Pounders  ”). 

Barges  for  transporting  obelisks,  60,  94,  117,  120,  12 1. 
Bed  of  removed  obelisk,  27,  49. 

Beknekhonsu,  architect,  112. 

Benhen{t),  sacred,  19. 

Bending  stress,  75,  79. 

Block-and-tackle  (see  System  of  pulleys). 

Boats,  ancient,  61,  79,  89,  94. 

— loading  obelisks  on,  64. 

• — • modern  removals  in,  117,  120,  12 1. 

— paucity  of  data  on,  61. 

— • troops  used  in  unloading,  64. 

— unloading  obehsk  from,  65. 

128 


INDEX 


129 


Boning-rods,  36. 

Burning  granite,  26,  33. 

Calculations,  ancient,  76,  89,  90. 

Canal,  statement  by  Pliny  on,  88. 

Caps,  metal,  to  obelisks,  20. 

Capstan,  66,  115,  117. 

Centre  lines,  29,  41. 

Centre  of  gravity,  72,  75,  79. 

Chisel-marks,  33,  38,  41. 

Chisels,  copper,  39. 

Choisy’s  theory  of  erection  of  obelisks,  76. 

Cleopatra’s  Needles  (see  London  and  New  York  obelisks). 
Colonnade  of  Luxor  Temple,  82. 

Colossi,  erection  of,  76. 

Compartments  in  brick  ramp,  90. 

Constantine  the  Great,  transport  under,  no. 
Constantinople  obelisk,  18. 

— history  of,  no. 

Constantins,  shipment  of  obelisk  under,  109. 

Copper  chisels,  39. 

■ — tempering  of,  39. 

Crabs,  copper,  under  New  York  obelisk,  in,  118. 

Cracks  in  granite,  ancient  examination  of,  28,  37. 

Cubit,  28,  43. 

— common,  43. 

— royal  Egyptian,  43. 

Cutting  granite,  39,  40. 

Date  of  Aswan  obelisk,  27. 

Dates  of  Egyptian  kings,  123. 

Detaching  obelisk  from  bed,  49. 

Dhuthotpe,  statue  of,  58. 

Dhutiy,  alleged  108-cubit  obelisks  of,  76,  106. 

— history  of,  106. 

Dimensions  of  obelisks,  30. 

Dolerite  balls  (see  “ Pounders  ”). 

Dragomans’  tales,  91. 

El-Bersheh,  transport  scene  from,  58. 

Electrum,  20,  79,  94,  97,  102. 

Elephantine,  obelisks  from,  18. 

Embankment  at  Aswan,  31,  70. 

Embankments  for  erecting  obelisks,  68. 

Emery,  81. 

Engineers  (see  Architects). 

Engraving  obelisks,  80. 

Entasis,  note  on,  37. 

Erection  of  colossi,  note  on,  76. 

9 


130 


INDEX 


Erection  of  obelisks : 

— by  direct  raising,  67,  115,  116, 

— • by  embankment,  68. 

— Choisy’s  method,  76. 

— London  method,  12 1. 

— New  York  method,  118. 

— Paris  method,  116. 

— probable  Egyptian  method,  69. 

— at  Seringapatam,  67. 

E — under  “ Rhamsesis,”  91. 

- — Vatican  method,  115. 

Extraction  of  obelisks  from  quarry,  41. 

“ Feathers  ” for  wedges,  34. 

Finger,  division  of  cubit,  43. 

Fissures  (see  Cracks). 

Flagstaves,  20,  108,  113. 

Fontana,  Domenico  ; architect,  109,  115. 

Foot ; measure,  43,  47,  49, 

Friction  of  sled,  57,  58. 

“ Funnel  for  erecting  obelisks,  69. 

Gorringe,  Lt.-Commr.  H.  H.,  120. 

Guide-lines  for  masons,  38. 

Gum,  acacia,  41. 

Hammammat,  quarries  of,  85. 

Hammer-dressing,  36,  80. 

Hammer,  granite,  from  Gizeh,  34. 

Handling-loops  on  ropes,  56. 

Hatshepsowet,  Queen  : 

— inscription  of,  102. 

— obelisk  of,  on  sled,  57. 

— ■ obelisks  of,  Frontispiece,  17,  29,  30,  48,  60,  67,  72,  79,  98. 

— relations  with  Tuthmosis  III,  64,  93,  95,  97,  105. 

— ■ transport  scenes  of,  57,  61,  63. 

Heliopolis,  obelisks  at,  17,  18,  20,  37,  no,  in. 

Henufer,  mother  of  Sennemut,  10 1. 

Herodotus,  record  by,  88. 

Hieratic  inscriptions,  46,  47,  51. 

Hog-frame  (see  Queen-truss). 

Hophra,  king,  113. 

Hori,  the  scribe,  87. 

Hypostyle  Hall  at  Karnak,  attribution  of,  82. 

Ineni  ; architect,  history  of,  93. 

Inscriptions  : 

■ — from  architects’  tombs  and  statues,  92. 

— Greek  and  Latin  of  Pontius,  in. 


INDEX 


131 


Inscriptions  {cont.) : 

— Greek  visitors’,  near  Aswan  obelisk,  31. 

— on  bed  of  small  obelisk  at  Aswan,  50. 

— on  obelisks,  92,  96. 

— on  pedestal  of  Hatshepsowet’s  obelisk,  102. 

— on  potsherd,  51. 

— on  upper  quarry-face,  Aswan,  46,  47. 

Iron,  preservation  of,  40. 

— wedges,  34,  35. 

Karnak  obelisks : 

— of  Pylon  III,  82. 

— of  Pylon  IV,  74,  93. 

■ — of  Pylon  VII,  29,  74,  107. 

— of  Pylon  VIII,  108. 

Lateran  obelisk,  27,  29,  30,  107. 

■ — architect  of,  108. 

' — history  of,  108. 

Lebas  ; architect,  1 16. 

Length  of  Aswan  obelisk,  25,  30. 

Levers,  for  “ rocking  ” obelisk,  54. 

— found  in  excavations,  56. 

— raising  obelisk  by,  66,  67. 

Lines,  guide,  25,  29,  38,  41. 

— measuring,  on  Aswan  obelisk,  43,  45. 
London  obehsk : 

— history  of,  no,  12 1. 

— modern  removal  of,  12 1. 

Luxor  obelisk : 

— architect  of,  112. 

— history  of,  112. 

Mataria  obelisk,  17,  30,  37,  in. 
Menkheperra-sonb,  107,  no. 

Menthuhotpe  IV,  expedition  under,  85. 
Mindalah,  44. 

Model  of  embankment,  70. 

Models,  ancient,  79, 

Modern  removals  of  obelisks,  114. 

Monthu,  temple  of,  at  Karnak,  83. 

New  York  obelisk : 

— copper  crabs  under,  in,  118. 

— history  of,  no,  117. 

— modern  removal  of,  117. 

— ■ Pontius’s  erection  of,  in. 

Nineveh,  transport  of  bull  at,  56. 

Notch  in  obelisk  pedestals,  67,  68,  72,  73. 


132 


INDEX 


Obelisk-engineers  (see  Architects). 

Old  Kingdom  obelisks,  17,  18. 

Palm  ; measure,  43. 

Palm  rope,  56. 

Paris  obelisk : 

— ' architect  of,  112. 

— modern  removal  of,  116. 

— notes  on  friction  of  “cradle,”  58. 

Philae,  obelisks  at,  18. 

Pliny,  record  of,  88. 

Pontius ; architect,  in. 

“ Pounders  ” of  dolerite,  30,  36,  38,  42,  50,  80. 

— broken  by  blows,  42. 

' — pits  made  in  granite  by,  42,  45. 

— rate  of  work  using,  48. 

— shod  on  to  rammers,  42,  44. 

— trench  round  Aswan  obelisk  made  by,  41. 

— wear  on,  42. 

— weight  of,  42. 

Psammetikhos,  king,  113. 

Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  transport  under,  88. 
Puimre ; architect,  99,  106. 

Quarries,  22. 

— reason  why  neglected,  24. 

Quarry-face  near  Aswan  obelisk,  26,  46. 

“ Queen-truss  ” on  boats,  63. 


Ramesses  I,  83. 

Harnesses  II : 

— ' obelisks  of,  18,  112,  116. 

— usurpations  by,  in. 

Ramesses  IV : 

— expedition  under,  86. 

— usurpation  by,  96. 

Ramesses  VI,  usurpation  by,  96. 
Ramesses-nakht,  Director  of  Works,  86. 
Rammers,  42,  44. 

Ramose,  father  of  Sennemut,  10 1. 

— tomb  at  Thebes,  19. 

Rate  of  work  when  pounding  granite,  48. 
Records  of  ancient  workmen,  46. 

Regnal  year,  49,  104. 

Rollers,  ancient,  58. 

— for  transporting  obelisk,  58. 

— size  of,  60. 

Rolling  obelisk  out  of  quarry,  55. 


INDEX 


133 


Rome,  obelisks  at,  18,  108,  109,  115. 

— (see  also  Lateran  and  Vatican  obelisks) . 
Ropes : 

— handling-loops  to,  56. 

— size  of,  56. 

Rusting  of  iron,  40. 

Sand  : 

— packing  obelisk  with,  55. 

— ■ used  in  erecting  colossi,  89. 

— used  in  erecting  obelisks,  69. 
Sarcophagi,  unfinished,  23. 

Sawing  granite,  81. 

Scale  models : 

— ■ ancient,  79. 

— used  for  illustrations,  70,  116,  118. 
Senmen,  brother  of  Sennemut,  loi. 
Sennemut ; architect,  22,  99. 

Senusret  I,  obelisk  of,  17,  18,  30,  iii. 
Seringapatam  obelisk,  67. 

Seti  I,  king,  109. 

— model  temple  of,  80. 

— works  of,  18,  84. 

Seti  II,  obelisk  of,  17. 

Setting  out  an  obelisk,  32. 

Sheers,  66,  116. 

Shock-absorbers,  58,  74,  76. 

Single  obelisk  erected,  108,  109. 

Sleds,  57,  60,  70. 

Slot  in  obelisk  pedestals,  67,  68,  72,  73. 
Soldiers  used  in  transport  work,  64,  86. 
Soleb  Temple,  obelisks  at,  18. 

Spanish  windlass,”  57. 

Statues  of  architects,  92,  99,  loi,  107,  112. 
Steel,  not  known  to  Egyptians,  39. 

Stress  due  to  weight  of  obelisk,  75, 
Sun-obelisks,  19. 

Surface-dressing,  36,  80. 

Surface-testing  : 

— by  boning-rods,  36. 

— fine,  by  flat  plane  and  ochre,  80. 
Systems  of  pulleys : 

— in  modern  erections,  115,  116. 

— unknown  to  Egyptians,  66. 

Tanis,  obelisks  at,  18. 

Tempering  of  copper,  39. 

Test-shafts,  32,  35. 

Transliteration  of  Egyptian  names,  10,  125, 


134 


INDEX 


Tutankhamun,  negative  evidence  of,  82. 

Tuthmosid  succession,  notes  on,  97. 

Tuthmdsis  I,  obelisks  of,  at  Karnak,  Frontispiece,  61,  75,  93, 
96,  107. 

Tuthmosis  II,  95,  97. 

Tuthmosis  III : 

— obelisks  of,  27,  74,  75,  107,  no,  in,  117,  121. 

— reigns  before  Tuthmosis  II,  97. 

— ■ relations  with  Queen  Hatsheps6wet,  64,  93,  95,  97,  105. 
Tuthmosis  IV  puts  up  Tuthmosis  Ill’s  obelisk,  108. 

“ Undercutting  ” obelisks  in  quarry,  49. 

Vocalisations  of  Egyptian  words,  10,  125. 

Wedges,  23,  33. 

Weights  of  obelisks,  30. 

Work  : 

— ancient  arrangement  of,  44. 

■ — by  piece  and  not  by  time,  45. 

— method  of  measuring,  46. 


Printed  in  Great  Britain  by  Hazell,  Watson  & Viney,  Ld.t 
London  and  Aylesbury. 


Wivi 


[iir/*' 


...  .■V' 


f] 


t 


1 


I 


i 

\ 


GETTY  RESEARCH  INSTITUTE 


3 3125  01188  1543 


